Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by generated 1247 days ago
Hmm, while these may be the emotional pangs of going through the process, there is a much greater failure that destroys much more value (both monetary and tangible benefit).

Joining a large company prevents expanding total addressable market.

The acquirer wants to tap an existing resource. While growth is commendable, it's only perceived as an option within a narrow customer base or market segment. It's increasing ROI, not capitalizing on new changes in the market.

This looks like a failure to innovate, but that's correlation not causation; not the root cause. There's plenty of innovation, it's just constrained by a limited business model.

I've never seen a company break out of this trap. If you make money from ads, b2b users (Slack), or b2b management (Oracle), it's impossible to change those stripes.

Microsoft could make a video game unit because they think "software in a box." Amazon never will.

It's not usually the giants where this really plays out, but the middle tier. Adobe, Atlassian, Intuit, PayPal, Salesforce, Walmart labs. Like trading Bitcoin for pizza in 2015, they made a great financial deals that paid off, even legitimized the space and were ahead of their time, but lost out on underpinning entire future markets.

4 comments

> Microsoft could make a video game unit because they think "software in a box." Amazon never will.

Amazon literally has a video game unit. The game on Steam with the 5th most online players (as of the time of posting this comment) was made by Amazon: https://steamcharts.com/app/1599340

Disclosure: I don't think it really biases anything about this comment, but AWS is my current employer.

Lost Ark was developed and published by Smilegate in Korea for three years before Amazon published it in the west. Saying that they developed it is not really accurate.

Better examples of games developed by Amazon Game Studios would be Lost World or Crucible.

I was thinking of "new world" when I wrote the comment. It's essentially the most "design by committee" MMO possible, and the reviews reflect the poor attempt.

Weirdly, MMOs actually fit Amazon's business model better than off the shelf games. You pay for access, like Amazon prime. I'm surprised they didn't bundle in new world into prime membership as a way of catapulting their video game unit expansion. That's much more their modus operandi; expand first and just the intense scale to force improvement over time.

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/new-world

I've never played it, so I can't comment personally, but New World has allegedly gotten significantly better recently (according to people I know who do play it) and has "Very Positive" recent reviews on Steam.

Also, AGS is making a single player game, at least according to this press release:

https://www.amazongames.com/en-us/news/articles/amazon-games...

> ...but lost out on underpinning entire future markets.

It's worth a fairly recent reminder[1] what could happen when big companies with acquired ambitions bet big on pinning down future markets but fail to meet expectations before market sentiment decides to swing.

[1] https://seekingalpha.com/news/3896521-meta-dives-24-after-st...

I agree: Innovators Dilemma is a thing.

In addition to that, acquisitions often break up (performing) teams, and burden successful IC with additional „enterprisey“ workload which they might not be suited for.

Apple is doing it. They started off selling hardware and now they’re moving into services revenue.