It's interesting because in software it's usually the opposite. First to market is the winner even with an inferior product. See whatsapp and telegram

▲

metadat 9 days ago | parent | next [-]

Not a great comparison; those apps have serious network effects.

▲

coldtea 9 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>First to market is the winner even with an inferior product. See whatsapp and telegram

I don't think so. We use Excel not Lotus 1-2-3. iOS and Android, not Palm and Blackberry OSes or whatever mobile shit MS had first. We use Gmail not AOL. Google not Lycos or Altavista. Chrome not Netscape. Facebook and co, not Friendster or MySpace. Word not WordPerfect. Access not dBase. And regarding WhatsApp it's not ICQ or MSN Messenger that we use.

▲

bigfatkitten 9 days ago | parent [-]

I’d suggest that a whole bunch of those were not improvements.

▲

coldtea 9 days ago | parent [-]

Which is orthogonal to what I'm responding to, which was that:

"First to market is the winner even with an inferior product. See whatsapp and telegram"

My point is that this not true, and that "first to market" usually losses.

If anything, what you suggest, reinforces it even more, since it implies that not only "first to market" often loses to a superior product, but even to players an inferior one.

	▲	bigfatkitten 9 days ago \| parent [-]
		I worded that inarticulately. Some of those first movers were absolute trash, though I agree that later and more commercially successful products are not always better.