Of course, those who have experienced it can vouch for it.

Of course, those who have experienced it can vouch for it.

Such is the tragedy of Oedipus and such is the tragedy of these companies, I think.

Twitter to me seems like an accelerating train without any brakes. It's just cruising at break neck speed and you have your fingers crossed hoping it will not crash. It's simplicity and openness is clearly what brought it here. But as they struggle with making real money I am sure being simple and open will not help. The moment they deviate from this core strength, it may bring about it's downfall.

AOL – Fair point about broadbad, although AOL did try offering broadband for awhile (albeit half heartedly). AOL stayed in the paid content business until just a few years ago until they finally realized too late it was a dying business.

This post leaves me hungry for more.
What's so different about tech companies? I understand technology is changing at a fast pace, but is this enough to prevent companies from “reinventing themselves”, especially when they have deep pockets?
What about GE, IBM, HP?

Please let me leave Aristotle for a while (I'm just an MIT geek, sorry ), and take Madonna as an example. Music styles keep changing as fast as technology, however some “greater” artists manage to survive this continuous change by readaptating influences from other to stay ahead.

On the other hand, should FB become Twitter or rather keep its ADN and reinvent the Twitter influence differently?
As I customer, I like products that do one thing at best rather than an average mix.

I believe every compelling product has a 5 to 10 year advantage, after which it becomes commoditized. Some with network effect or monopoly may extend this duration. However next cycle of innovation must come out of the previous box…
or bring you down…

Final question is: a company needs “ADN”, is it contradictory to lasting over decades?

For example, in the Apple example, it doesn't seem plausible that the unique business advantage described would be “We've got me, and I'm Steve Jobs.”

I guess you transformed the discussion into character traits/flaws rather than unique business model attributes, but I'd be interested in knowing whether or not you believe the business character flaws you listed are the reasons for the downfall (or future downfall). For example, in AOL's case, I don't believe the consumer choice was between being in a walled garden and not – I think it had to do more with broadband.

I believe that the biggest issue for all of these companies and people is one of anchoring their thinking. When you get into the “this is what got us here mentality” you are generally going to lose share over time in a fast moving disruptive world like technology.

If, however, you are in the business of serving up fast food hamburgers, and you stray off into chicken or something else – then perhaps a “back to basics” strategy makes sense – but in tech – it rarely does.

The difficulty with FB's moves to be more “open” is they're completely going against their operating model. It's like you said — authenticity and privacy are their strength.

I'd rather see FB stick to their core strengths, instead of diluting what is an advantage by trying to implement the “openness” of Twitter. By trying to be all things to all people, FB is actually making itself more vulnerable to a competing service like Twitter.