Kottke has a great point about the stupidity of trying to cast promising start-ups as The Next Google, The Next Microsoft, or The Next Whatever.
The true giants, like IBM, Microsoft, and Google, come to life so rarely that the chances of random company X being one of them is slim to the point that we might as well try to guess who’s going to be struck by lightning tomorrow or win the lottery.
But even more importantly, the real nexts are never repeats of the last next. That’s what makes them nexts! Thus the comparison is irrelevant.
Nobody is likely going to be the next Microsoft in much of anything that makes Microsoft the company it is: the Windows/Office power-punch. Google has been billed as such many times, but its entire being has nothing to do with the defining characteristics of Microsoft.
Defining nexts seem to be less about the companies and their character than about lazy writers starved for imagination to come up with something better than a tired cliche.
shofr
on 25 Feb 08claiming something is the “next” anything is the literary equivalent of shouting “first” in the comments of a blog, especially when you end up being second.
BTW, first? :)
brad
on 25 Feb 08This reminds me of a bit from a letter from Ted Hughes to Sylvia Plath, where he wrote:
Jon Bischke
on 25 Feb 08Is that always the case though? Wasn’t MySpace the next Friendster? Wasn’t Facebook kinda the next MySpace?!
I don’t disagree that 99.9% of startups cast as the next whatever won’t make it but I’m not sure that being cast as the next anything is always an invalid comparison.
George Colombo
on 25 Feb 08I’m afraid I’ve got to disagree on this one. There are instances where (1) the basic utility of an application is so overwhelming that it is a hit, in spite of the fact that (2) the application is poorly implemented or allowed to stagnate while the needs of users evolve. In those instances, it’s often possible to hit a home run with a re-run. Thus, Word was the “next” WordPerect (which, itself, was the “next” Wordstar), Lotus 123 was the “next” VisiCalc, etc. And, once upon a time, Google was the “next” Yahoo!
Having said all of that, I will admit that in today’s environment, far fewer market leaders allow their offerings to stagnate than was the case even a decade ago. But all it takes is for a market leader to get fat, dumb, and happy…
Jean-Pierre Bobbaers
on 25 Feb 08Interesting point. Why does this make me think about::Al-Qaeda or the Cluetrain Manifesto
Everybody thinks there will be a next BIG thing. Al-Qaeda doesn’t fight anymore with a structured organisation but totally defragmented and totally independant little initiatives.
Same thing in business , we will see in our new world order and communication thousands of little shops that give solutions to a few (read 0.0001%) of the world business. But how large is that ?
I remember a tv commercial mid 90’s of IBM with the sentence ’”build your own micro-multinational”. It was a carpenter in Island selling his tables and chairs to a family in California tue his website.
Of course McDonalds, Starbucks, Porsche will be still around for a while but as Negroponte stated : “Any business that can be turned digital will have global competition”
But I see it also as an opportunity for small businesses more then ever !
Good post
Frank Wong
on 25 Feb 08I interpret the “next” Google or Microsoft as a statement of size and revenue. These startups are merely saying that they will become as great and profitable as those previous companies. Sort of like saying “Greatest thing since sliced bread.” It does not mean the invention will replace sliced bread, but just as mind boggling… haha
Anyway, the “next” statement is ridiculous no matter what. Just be the best your can be and don’t compare yourself to others. Who knows, you might be limiting your potential by simply being the next Google or Microsoft… ok I’m back to reality.
riki
on 26 Feb 08I’d love to see the outtakes, of all those VC meetings.
Brooks Jordan
on 26 Feb 08Normally, I would agree with you. You can’t predict where/when the next “Black Swan” is going to hit.
But Kottke is pointing to Umair Haque’s post and Umair’s thinking is much subtler than most. In that post, Umair is making a point about economic advantage shifting to cooperation and community.
And it make sense in that context to talk about Etsy as the next Google or rather their approach.
In other words, it’s not about Etsy, or any particular company, but the economics of community.
Tim
on 26 Feb 08Very true. The fundamental naivety of the statement is what makes it so dumb. Big, powerful incumbents are rarely beaten at their own game.
The same thing applies to products that are pitched against any market leader that’s become a self-sustaining standard. It’s kind of sad watching the Slashdot crowd pining away for the emergence of Linux on the desktop, when it’s already eating Windows alive on embedded hardware like routers, in virtual appliances and very cheap pcs like the EeePC.
Mark Gallagher
on 26 Feb 08Your examples don’t make your point.
Early in Google’s life there were several predictions in the press that they were the next Microsoft.
These predictions were mostly true. Google is now a challenge to Microsoft in many of its markets.
And Microsoft is now trying to be the next Google in search.
Yes, the word is a little cliche, but it works in these examples.
Cheers, Mark
Randall Farmer
on 26 Feb 08Points to Jon Bischke—I hadn’t throught of it, but there is still some old-fashioned competition within markets. As well as the big wins the Signals talk about, where a company becomes a behemoth by seizing a relatively new market (computers; PC software; Internet search and advertising).
I wonder what the journalists were saying around the time of Microsoft, IBM, or Google’s rise. Whether Google was the next AltaVista, or whether they were talking about other DOSes (CP/M?) or BASICs during Microsoft’s rise.
CraziestGadgets.com
on 26 Feb 08Nobody’s the next anybody.
As long as your product/service has a weakness, someone will be poised to be the next by exploiting it. Innovation and expansion is the key to avoid obsoletion.
Netscape>IE>Firefox
Raphael Campardou
on 26 Feb 08I wanna be the next 37signals ! :-)
GeeIWonder
on 26 Feb 08There are lots of repeats out there. As ye olde saying goes, nothing is new since the Greeks.
some guy
on 26 Feb 08not the same thing, but a little ironic: http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives2/predicting_06_enterprise_is_the_new_legacy.php
umair
on 28 Feb 08so, you might want to try actually…ummm…reading the post i wrote that kicked off this discussion.
i use “next” in a very different sense than you’re talking about.
http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2008/02/etsy-google-20.cfm
Vicky
on 28 Feb 08It seems to me that the more I read about entrepreneurship, the more I see the ‘next best thing’ mentality. I think to myself, it’s great to want to be ‘the best’ and to have ‘high expectations’, but aren’t they setting themselves up for a fall trying to be the next big thing. As people have said, this comes so rarely. Maybe your grand vision should be to be the next best thing, but realisticly what percentage of people can base a startup around this expectation and suceed.
I wouldn’t want to try to lead 10 employees working for revenue shares using the motto, when we become the next big thing, you all will be millionaires. That person would have to have a great vision and be ‘spot on’ always to pull that off.
WIth the fluidity and the changing of the web so quicky, it’s not being the next best thing. It’s staying the next best thing that counts.
This discussion is closed.