I bet there’s a clean game theory model here. Iterated game with probabilistic payoffs for A, B, and C based on strengths, burn rate and extinction limits.
Conversation
Kinda hard to communicate the fundamental elegance I see in this pattern because it seems to have a lot of moving parts. But it’s simpler than it looks, just not as simple as spherical-cow textbook asymptotes of perfect competition commodities or perfect monopolies.
1
1
Player A can be on a low-cost trim trajectory of “steady growth,” pace-setting the race with 2 variables — benchmark cost and tempo of incremental innovation. And do so with minimal maneuvering or strategizing. But B and C have to actively maneuver to follow, at high cost.
1
1
If A decides to lower prices, everybody’s unit economics shifts and there’s a cost pressure others can handle less.
If A decides to introduce a feature it’s basically in, with near zero adoption risk, but for B, C, it only works if it’s a radical leap OR if A follows suit.
1
1
A can maintain lead with a series of minor innovations that others MUST emulate, Disruptors can swing for the fences with low chance of success. But B and C have a really tight zone: radical enough to be a must-have, but not so radical that it blows up unit economics.
1
1
Otoh pure cost improvements are easiest for the player with already biggest scale. B and C face a second-tier dilemma — less able to compete on cost, tightly constrained in competing on features/differentiation. Most will tend to either be too costly or force them into a niche.
1
1
For B and C the most effective strategy is not actually allyship but just giving up position and differentiating to the point they niche-down to the margins and can launch a properly disruptive attack. Leave the core to attack it. It benefits A to keep them allied in false hope.
1
2
For A the biggest risk is unforced execution errors in making the pace-setting innovations (sustaining and only as radical as necessary). This creates an opening for B or C to steal the lead (though they will almost certainly fumble it in the next round).
1
2
To retain leadership dividends, keep your enemies close and friendly with each other and don’t make unforced errors. And don’t get greedy. Strong defensive positions are nearly always fumbled by greed.
2
4
Replying to
Well, sure, but context and general situational awareness are... relevant: youtube.com/watch?v=yFMq-2
1
Replying to
Great video but not sure what your point is. Lions and gazelles don’t share a market. They’re not competitors. They’re predator/prey.
Replying to
Sure fine but they share an ecosystem. Attempted point was only to keep in mind that your "market" is not isolated or separate from outside forces with potentially more power than you and those you deem as competitors.

