Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
androidsixteen pfp
androidsixteen
@androidsixteen.eth
Conventional Silicon Valley wisdom biases towards being “early” to markets rather than being “late”, but this isn’t an absolute — it’s a trade-off just like everything else in life If your product is addressing a market need that isn’t fully there yet (ie. you’re “early”), then the risk taken is around surviving long enough for the market to mature. You can allay this by being lean, achieving ramen profitability, or raising a fat war chest to ride it out Conversely, if the market is already here (ie. you’re “late”), then you’ll face more competition from other products. You’ll have to battle for customers, and the risk becomes more about sales and speed of execution Personally, I prefer the former. The stress of a competitive category is exhausting, and I’d rather build a product for a market that shows glimpses of maturity. That way, when the market arrives in full, you will have had time to build a great product experience and can just scoop up customers
7 replies
6 recasts
54 reactions
Gregarious pfp
Gregarious
@gregarious
Perhaps a different framing is around the risk associated with the market as opposed to early or late. Some markets are “new” but clear while others are hidden, embedded, or encumbered such that their age still makes them unattractive. We saw many markets that existed where a technology would be clearly transformative (internet, data, ai) but also lots of industry that were much harder to move (education, government, etc)
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction