Chris Dixon

Incumbents die due to irrelevance or ineptitude

Judging from the tech press, you’d think the biggest risk to successful companies is competition. But when you examine the history of technology, incumbents usually decline because the world changes and they lose relevance, or because they lose visionary founders and the organization decays. Some examples:

- Dell thrived when PCs dominated the computer market and Dell was the low cost provider of commodity hardware products. The shift to mobile and tablet computing meant that hardware quality (not price) was once again the primary basis of competition. As a result, Dell’s laser-like focus on cost reduction became a liability.

- The New York Times was, for many decades, one of the few premium channels through which brand and classified advertisers could reach mass consumers. Thus car companies and real estate brokers subsidized foreign reporting and investigative business journalism. The internet provided a vast alternative channel, and the Times became far less relevant. At the same time, the internet provided many new sources for breaking news, editorials etc, hurting the Times on the subscriber side.

- Yahoo didn’t lose because Google out-competed them on search. They lost because they didn’t really care about search – indeed, they outsourced algorithmic search to Alta Vista, Inktomi and then Google itself. The leading portals back in circa 2000 (Yahoo, Excite, Lycos etc) desperately wanted to keep keep users on their site – the buzzword was “stickiness” – but Google knew better and focused on getting users off of Google to other places on the web. Yahoo became just another place to read celebrity gossip and use generic web services.

- Netflix thrived when they could simply ignore the movie companies and rely on the first-sale doctrine to get DVDs. The market shift to streaming video created a new and brutal dependency. They had to go make deals with content companies. Now they are even trying to create their own content to lessen this dependency. They have a brilliant and visionary management team but this is a tough transition to make.

- Sony relied on its Steve-Jobs-like founder, Akio Morita, to repeatedly develop incredibly innovative products (among them: the first transistor radio, the first transistor television, the Walkman, the first video cassette recorder, the compact disc) that seemed to come out of nowhere and create massive new markets. Since he left, the company has floundered and the stock has fallen dramatically.

- Google’s biggest risk isn’t a direct competitor. Startups and incumbents who’ve tried to create better search engines have barely cut into Google’s market share. Google’s primary risk – and they seem to know this – is that they are no longer relevant when people find content through social sites, and where an ever increasing portion of the web is uncrawlable.

Google released their “Dropbox-killer” a few days ago. I don’t know if Dropbox has yet achieved incumbent status, but they certainly seem to be the market leader. They also seem to have a very competent management team. So if history is a guide, Dropbox’s biggest risk isn’t a competitor but irrelevance – if, for example, files become less and less important in a web services world and Dropbox doesn’t adapt accordingly.

  • http://twitter.com/ScotchGuyDan Dan Bowen

    Do Google and Microsoft kill DropBox and others not because of being the market leaders but having a better rapper?  Google docs and Office Online are very compelling reasons to have my data co-located with the apps/services I’ll use.  I honestly believe Facebook is facing a much bigger threat of a loss of relevance as the world identifies what is actually important to them within the platform…ie…is the slow bleed something as simply as photo sharing or the perception of not being cool anymore?  I think the same must be a concern for Apple as well. Every great company is constantly climbing the mountain but no single company can live in a fortress at the top for a lifetime.

  • https://plus.google.com/112879998616209951634/posts David Barnes

    Google Drive says much more about Google’s dim view of its own future than it does about Dropbox. Google’s really struggling to do anything right these days.

    Remember how Gmail was received when it came out? It’s been a long time since a new release from Google made people happy.

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      Yeah, Gmail was a huge success. It was one of their first non-search products as I recall, and was truly much better than competitors (unlimited storage, working search etc).

      • https://plus.google.com/112879998616209951634/posts David Barnes

        And the first time most of us saw a web app that responded without page refreshes. It was like magic.

        Even then it didn’t stop most people using Hotmail. Your point about competition stands.

        But is online storage mature enough as a market for the incumbent position to mean very much? When Gmail launched nearly everybody on the internet had a mail account. Not so with online storage today.

  • http://twitter.com/IceCreamYou Isaac Sukin

    I listened to a senior manager from Dropbox talk at Penn recently. Towards the end of the presentation he started talking about who Dropbox considers competition: Google, Facebook, etc. I was shocked that he wasn’t talking about Box.net and SugarSync et al, and I told him so (I uninstalled Dropbox recently because SugarSync constantly and incrementally backs up all my files on all of my devices — iPhone, Android tablet, laptop). He responded that those other companies were chasing Dropbox and that Dropbox’s vision was broader than file backup — basically what you are saying, Chris.

    To me it just came across as arrogant. There is a certain point when you hit a critical mass of users and for most people it just doesn’t make sense to use an alternative service (see: Facebook v. Google+). But it seems obvious to me that there are critical features missing from the file-syncing/sharing world that could give a Dropbox competitor the necessary edge. For example, no one has figured out yet how to seamlessly transition workflow between devices, or what that would even mean.

    On the other hand, I love this quote from Bryce.vc:

    “Startups don’t compete with airlines by purchasing a bunch of planes,
    hiring a bunch of pilots and locking up a bunch of terminals at
    airports. Startups compete with airlines by inventing videoconferencing.”

    http://bryce.vc/post/18404303850/the-problem-with-innovation

    And Paul Graham agrees with respect to Microsoft/Windows: http://www.paulgraham.com/ideas.html

    On the other hand, it looks like Macs are creeping up on Windows, and not because Mac OS had some radical change that makes Windows irrelevant or because Windows made some catastrophic error that drove people away.

    So I agree that generally radical innovation is a worthwhile (and fun!) target for entrepreneurs. But I also think that incremental improvements have more of a role to play in real life than the tech-startup culture usually gives them credit. Take AMD vs. Intel for example — radical innovations on the technology side perhaps, but still the same basic product as far as consumers are concerned.

    • JamesHRH

      Isaac – I am constantly pimping these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positioning_(marketing)

      Their 22 Rules of Marketing is a bible for B2C strategy.

      Bryce & Paul are basically quoting form it, without having read it. It was also a big part of Geoffrey Moore’s Crossing the Chasm.

      40 year old thinking that is as applicable today as it ever was. It must be fun to have been SO right!

  • Anonymous

    In Google Drive vs Dropbox, I have heard from several people that Google Drive is something that they have had internally for several years but they never got around to releasing as a consumer product. What were they thinking?  
     
     An interesting incumbent to look at these days is Nintendo, who still does innovative products, both hardware and software, but is getting killed by an “attack from below” on their portable platform from cheap game apps running on iOS and Android.

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      Yeah, Nintendo is an interesting case. They might have to switch to the software only model a la Sega on the handheld side.

  • http://kidmercury.posterous.com/ kidmercury

    i don’t think dropbox is incumbent status, and i think they are going to get they are going to lose to the top dogs. dropbox is basically an infrastructure play and that is google’s turf (or amazon). google has serious network effects advantage and since dropbox doesn’t have a niche focus but rather a “get all the users in hte world” focus, they are especially vulnerable here, in my opinion. 

    i also like box.net’s product much more.

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      box seems like a very interesting company too.

    • JamesHRH

      Kid – see above, disagree respectfully.

    • http://quipol.com/ Max Yoder

      Do you think the guys at Box are considering a name change?
       
      Dropbox certainly owns mindshare at this point, and I think there’s going to be a reasonable amount of confusion if Box ever becomes anywhere near as well-known as Dropbox currently is. I know it might seem trivial today, but there’s a lot at stake if one of them has to rebrand at a point of prominence. (How they both got similar trademarks in such similar spaces is beyond my grasp.) From an outsider’s perspective, it seems like a name change now would be smarter than a name change later.

      If nothing else, I’d like to know who’s better legally poised to win a fight over the “box” term in the storage sphere.

  • http://berislav.lopac.net Berislav Lopac

    Chris, I’m a big fan of steaming video, but somehow I don’t think that’s what you meant here… ;-)

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      :) thanks, fixed

    • JamesHRH

      too funny – wish I had seen it live

  • http://about.me/mikeschinkel MikeSchinkel

    I definitely agree that incumbents die and it’s fascinating to watch. It’s also good because it means that people have opportunity; the top spots aren’t like the Saudi Monarchy – not hope for change.

    But I disagree that it’s because of ineptitude; I think it is typically the opposite. 

    Companies like Dell, NYTimes, Google, etc. become optimally adapted for what they do, and their corporate instincts are the kill anything that threatens their leadership in their space, including internal changes needed to evolve to address the new market realities. The leading corporation views these changes as “threats”, analogous to allergens in the body, because it’s developed internal “antibodies” to combat these threats.

    Examples of threats are changes that could (at least in the short term) cause a marketshare decline and/or reduce margins. Few CEOs have the guts to kill the cash cow, and sales managers will slash the throat of anything that might lower their commission.

    So it’s not ineptitude that keeps a corporation from evolving, it’s the very fact they are excellent at what they do that ultimately kills them when what they do becomes irrelevant. I would instead that those who avoid such a fate are exceptional vs. those who don’t being inept.

    Of course this wasn’t my insight; Clayton Christensen should get all the credit for my understanding of these dynamics. 

    • JamesHRH

      ‘not ineptitude that keeps a corporation from evolving,’

      Depends on your definition I guess. Its hard to do, but it gets done in some companies.

      • http://about.me/mikeschinkel MikeSchinkel

        True, nothing is black in white, in life or in corporations. But the general point was that evolving to address a changing world is really, really, really hard. Kudos to those who do, assumed as much for those who don’t.

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      I we agree and what you are referring to is what I am calling becoming irrelevant…

      • http://about.me/mikeschinkel MikeSchinkel

        Completely agree on “irrelevant”; “inept” was what I was caveating.

  • JamesHRH

    Chris – great post, but I have some quibbles.

    1) The first-sales doctrine is not going to get Netflix over the hump: playing with the incumbents assets is still playing with their assets.

    They own them, you don’t. Eventually, you will need their help & they have a less than stellar track record on helping upstart tech wizards eat their lunch money (funny how that works!).

    And, of course, the big ‘hit media’ companies are addicted to a 30 year old business model. They are not giving it up easily and they really don’t want to change.

    That puts Netflix in a classic warfare predicament: you cannot go forward & attack the market when your supply chain is attacking you. Hulu anyone?

    2) Google’s biggest risk is not social: what can they possibly due about social?

    Their biggest risk is that they lack anyone on the management team or BoD with really strong B2C strategy / branding skills.

    With the exception of Android, they brand everything Google and still wonder why nothing works. Normals think GOOG=search.

    Their obsession with ‘fast following’ competitors ignores the basic branding principle that the first to own the perception owns the market. Dropbox is cloud based file sharing. Its over.

    I have not asked him pointedly as to the origin of this doctrine, but Fred Wilson repeatedly lists ‘category creator’ in the list of attributes of portfolio companies. He could help Larry a lot. Larry should phone Bill Gates and ask him how the fast following strategy worked out.

    Every other example is bang on. I especially love the Yahoo example: “we are worried about what we want (stickiness drives ads) not what you want” should be their company motto.

    It will be interesting to see how the second generation of portals (social) deals with the “me want sticky” issue. No busy normal person I know spends more than 20 minutes a day on social sites.

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      I think we’re agreeing re Netflix. It only worked with DVDs and doesn’t work with streaming.

      • JamesHRH

        We are. Cable companies helping BigMedia hold onto too.

        I am NYC to meet someone you know in May – any chance I could buy you breakfast?

  • Pingback: Daily Run Down 04/26/2012 | Wayne's Workshop

  • Pingback: What Works—and Doesn’t—on Facebook - The Society – Entrepreneurs Epicentre

  • Anonymous
  • Pingback: TWL- Links on Squandering Greatness, Doing Bad Business and the Concept of Patience. | drunkonlife.net

  • Anonymous

    I think the interesting one to watch with be how Cisco deals with Software Defined Networks (SDN).  There appears to be real momentum behind the network virtualization push and Cisco will like face an innovators dilemma situation over the coming years.  Some of the recent articles talk to this - https://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=cisco+sdn+nicira

  • http://twitter.com/braditdigg Brad

    Yep, it’s like that concept 
    Clayton M. Christensen described, people don’t buy a drill, they buy a hole. So if you want to stay innovative you need to observe, question what people do differently and adjust yourself according to that. For some reason it’s hard for established companies to do that, as Christensen mentioned in one of his books.

    I think there’s a window of opportunity for startups when there is a transition from one way to another way of doing things.

    For example, if 3D technology becomes widely used and 3d videos become the standard, then a company could appear that would make viewing ordinary 3D videos much better vs. Youtube which would prob add just another ‘view this video in 3D’ feature.

    Once again, an astoundingly good post. I wish there were more people like you sharing extremely valuable insights like these.

  • http://twitter.com/lchamberlin Luke Chamberlin

    That’s the real threat from Google Drive, not the storage prices or syncing but the fact that all of my text documents are already on there and I can produce/edit them right on my phone.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Burberry-Bags/100003765542665 Burberry Bags

     I really like this website , and hope you will write more ,thanks a lot for your information.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Burberry-Bags/100003765542665 Burberry Bags

    I really like this website , and hope you will write more ,thanks a lot for your information.
    Burberry Bags
    Burberry
    Cheap Burberry
    Burberry factory outlet

  • Pingback: How To Appeal To Investors: Top VCs Reveal The Anatomy Of A Successful Entrepreneur | Crowdfunding News

  • Pingback: How To Appeal To Investors: Top VCs Reveal The Anatomy Of A Successful Entrepreneur | TechCrunch

  • Pingback: The Comeback Of A&R (Or The Record Label’s Role)

  • Pingback: » THE COMEBACK OF A&R (OR THE ROLE OF A RECORD LABEL) AUDIO KORNER

  • Pingback: Winter is coming for the NFL. Tell me a story about Spring. | Andy Rankin's Blog