Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by elefantastisch 1307 days ago
This article seems like a good reminder to know what your fundamentals are and to be deliberate about picking them.

But I'm not convinced that this advice can be used to pick your fundamentals, your core business model.

Amazon opted for more choices and lower prices.

Barnes & Noble stuck with faster solutions to problems (get your book today not after a week of shipping as was common when Amazon started), deeper human interactions (you can go into the store and ask someone for recommendations, meet authors, etc.), and increased confidence/trust (you know what you're getting because you can hold it in your hand and read it before you buy it).

Low-cost carriers have moved in on traditional airlines because while it's true that people will never stop caring about added comfort, it turns out they care about lower prices much more.

But Apple built a staggering market cap relying on the assumption that while people care about lower price, they care about great control of your time (just works) and higher social status more.

So it seems like this article provides a good framework for thinking about your business, but doesn't give any answers as to the actual strategy you should use.

Or am I missing something?

4 comments

For me this is a good example of the old adage that you should not confuse vision with strategy.

The vision is you realize the universal truth (in Amazon’s case people want things cheap and fast).

The strategy is how you deliver on making that visions reality. This is what you call (rightly so) your core business model.

Only experience people tend to get all caught up in the big ideas of the vision (especially middle managers) but spend far to little time on making the hard choices that come with deciding in strategy: it’s as much, if not more, about deciding what not to do as it is commitment to what you will do to realize your vision.

Pretty solid point.

I read TFA’s take on fundamentals as neutral on the examples given. There was mention that Amazon survived where Beenz did not because they picked the right mix of changing and unchanging. On the other hand, the juxtaposition of Andreeson and Buffett says that you can find business success with seemingly opposite fundamentals.

That's a good point. I also suspect that companies can manipulate these value preferences a fair amount through marketing, e.g. lower price vs higher status.
Common theme seems to be making things easier and cheaper.