Congress is writing a bill right now to make it harder for big tech companies to buy startups. Ironically they want to promote competition, but this will inevitably hurt innovation and competition for some very obvious reasons:
1. Let’s say a new startup called WhatsUp launches and Meta decides it’s a very important market. Now, instead of Meta even considering that they should acquire WhatsUp and dramatically benefit WhatsUp’s investors and employees financially, this law forces them to copy the app.
2. Now, WhatsUp has an instant large scale competitor in the category, and they are looking for help from someone else with resources to compete with Meta. Well, also because of this law, Meta’s big tech competitors likely won’t be suitors due to the regulatory complexity.
3. Sucks for WhatsUp, but that’s competition, oh well. But then, when the next great new social product innovation pitches investors that were involved in WhatsUp, they’re too spooked to invest. Why take the risk that your asset can only go public as its only exit opportunity?
4. And soon, before you know it, entire categories of software are just “off limits” for new invocation and well funded startups because large incumbents already exist in that market. Ultimately, ironically, doing exactly the opposite of what the bill was intended to do.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the most fun parts of enterprise software is the relationship between tech innovation and how work happens. The process generally goes like this…
1. Some characteristic of how we work is inefficient or filled with friction. Maybe it’s how we collaborate, process orders, close the books, or manage inventory. Usually there’s existing technology involved (but not always) but that tech hasn’t caught up with the real process.
2. Either the existing technology is failing, or the process is fully analog. People are now working around the solution instead of in it. Often, a new startup is first to identify this gap in current solutions, and leverages some modern technology to solve the problem.
There’s an entire category of software disruption that’s possible just by building user experiences that only became possible to deliver in the browser in the past few years. Amazing what was once too expensive performance-wise is now utterly trivial today.
We’re building Box Sign, a native esignature product in Box, and can get away with infinitely better and faster UX than what was possible if we had started 10 years ago due to browser improvements and faster computers.
We can now render nearly any content type directly in your browser (PDF, CAD, Office, video, photoshop, etc.), streamed to you faster than the original asset could be, and with the ability to annotate and interact with on almost any type of file.
Market sizes are often artificially constrained by legacy participants or architectures. When we started Box, most investors could only see how large other players had gotten, as a way of evaluating the market size. But what was missed was that the cloud changed everything.
1. The cloud made software delivery more efficient, 10Xing demand. No longer did you have to install, upgrade, patch, and integrate software and hardware. That decrease in complexity meant any SMB could use enterprise tools, and any enterprise could support more vendors.
2. The cloud made distribution more efficient. When a customer can try a new piece of software with a few clicks in a web browser or a mobile app install, and only pay for what they use (SaaS vs. perpetual licenses), they adopt much more and much faster.