| Large companies are often wary of creating products that would impact their core product - possibly with diminishing revenue with the new product. Compare: https://www.imd.org/research-knowledge/articles/apples-dwind... > Under Steve Jobs, Apple had a track record of cannibalizing its own products. In 2005, when the demand for the iPod Mini remained huge, the Nano was launched, effectively destroying the revenue stream of an existing product. And while iPod sales were still going through the roof, Jobs launched the iPhone which combined iPod, cell phone, and Internet access into a single device. Three years after the iPhone’s launch, iPad made its debut and raised the prospect of cutting into Mac desktop computer sales. So resolute was Apple’s determination in trading a highly profitable business for an unknown future that Jobs reportedly said “If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will.” https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-on-cannibalization-201... > "The iPhone has to become so great that you don't know why you want an iPad," Schiller explained. "The iPad has to be so great that you don't know why you want a notebook. The notebook has to be so great that you don't know why you want a desktop. Each one's job is to compete with the other ones." > Apple has shed light on this way of thinking before. During a quarterly earnings call with investors in early 2013, Apple CEO Tim Cook said the company's "base philosophy is to never fear cannibalization." > "If we do, somebody else will just cannibalize it, and so we never fear it," Cook said. "We know that iPhone has cannibalized some iPod business. It doesn’t worry us, but it’s done that. We know that iPad will cannibalize some Macs. That doesn’t worry us." ---- Meanwhile, Google is very cannibalization reluctant to the point of throwing away products that may impact its main revenue sources. |