
Why it’s better to be the anti-status quo - enigmatic0202
https://productlessons.substack.com/p/why-its-better-to-be-the-anti-status
======
PaulDavisThe1st
The article opens with thoughts on the harmful misconceptions instilled in us
by schools regarding competition.

It seems, however, that the author acquired another related misconception
along the way:

>To do anything meaningful, we need to ultimately step out of the shadows of
others and into our own.

Some of the greatest accomplishments of humanity have come from people simply
working as a group. Sometimes those successes are utterly contingent on a lot
of people deliberately _not_ "stepping out of the shadows of others", but
instead simply quietly and efficiently getting on with what needs to be done.

~~~
enigmatic0202
That’s a great point. History is rarely made by singular heroes even though
those make for catchier headlines.

~~~
jhoechtl
You are right. But the initial spark often comes from one person, think of
Westinghouse and Tesla. Tesla was the technical genius yet he needed
Westingshouse economical/financial power-networks to get parts of his ideas
through.

Therefore AC power is undoublty a Westinghouse/Tesla/ many others
accomplishment yet without the relentless pushing and originality of one
person (Tesla) to step out of the giant Edison AC would not have come a
reality at its time.

So I think we see two things here: Ingenuity and true novel approaches are
(according to my observation) very often the think of one passionate person,
the societal breakthrough requires hands and ties working together.

As the second requires the first yet we as a society overemphasize on teamwork
already in step one, we are actively hampering innovation. See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24374363](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24374363)

~~~
enigmatic0202
Very cool example. Agree with your point. What I meant by history isn’t
actually made by singular heroes is that simultaneous innovation tends to be
the norm. Not sure if that applies to the Tesla example, but for most other
iconic moments like the lightbulb, there were dozens of people who
independently arrived at the same invention.

------
florakel
The article is basically just rehashing some ideas of Peter Thiel without
quoting his work. His book “0 to 1” starts with exactly the same thoughts.

~~~
enigmatic0202
Good point, I read it a while ago. Will go back and cite.

------
pdonis
The start of this article talks about how competition is supposedly bad, but
the rest of the article talks about how to out-compete other companies by
being better at finding a niche.

~~~
enigmatic0202
Oh interesting. I was trying to express that the mentality of competition
constrains us to what’s already been done. That’s why it’s harmful. Carving
out a piece of the future requires a different perspective, ideally one that’s
hard for the incumbent to replicate.

~~~
pdonis
_> I was trying to express that the mentality of competition constrains us to
what’s already been done. That’s why it’s harmful._

That doesn't seem to me like a mentality of competition. It seems to me like a
mentality of just going with the status quo. Competition in no way requires
going with the status quo. If you can out-compete others by changing the
rules, competition tells you to change the rules. David was competing with
Goliath; David won the competition by changing the rules.

To the extent competition is harmful, it's harmful because, as noted at the
start of the article, it tends to foster a zero-sum mentality: the only way I
can win is for you to lose. But creating wealth, which is what "competition"
is ultimately supposed to be about in the economic sense, requires positive
sum exchanges. Positive sum means _everybody_ wins. That's what I was
expecting the rest of the article to be about; but it isn't. It's just about a
different kind of zero sum, where you make the competitors lose by changing
the rules instead of by playing better than them within the existing rules.

~~~
enigmatic0202
Competition is often interpreted as going toe-to-toe rather than rethinking
the game.

As for positive-sum, Shopify has provided that. By making it easier for
entrepreneurs to start a online store, they’ve created another distribution
channel for them beyond the Amazon status quo. They chose the opposite of
aggregation.

~~~
pdonis
_> As for positive-sum, Shopify has provided that. By making it easier for
entrepreneurs to start a online store, they’ve created another distribution
channel for them beyond the Amazon status quo._

Is the expectation that this will end up creating more online business
overall, or that Shopify will just end up taking some portion of Amazon's
existing business?

The former is positive sum. The latter is not--whatever Shopify gains, Amazon
loses.

~~~
enigmatic0202
The former. Good feedback! I’ll work on making this more clear.

------
kippinitreal
> In the age of COVID, they [local retail] are also emerging as the most
> convenient option with delivery and pickup turnarounds in under an hour.

What?!? Local retail is being absolutely decimated right now. If anything, big
box stores have had a resurgence as being “essential” with a wide product
catalog gave them a temporary advantage. Most mom & pop retail are being
crushed (obviously there are some exceptions).

~~~
enigmatic0202
That’s what I would’ve expected too. But having spoken to many local retailers
and seen sales trends, it’s the opposite. COVID has been a challenge for all,
but local retailers have been uniquely resilient, using online channels like
IG and Shopify to meet customers where they are.

Wariness of crowds is also not going away. A local retailer is likely to draw
a smaller crowd at a given point in time than big box counterpart.

------
Animats
_The most ideal position is one in which:_

 _1\. You are uniquely positioned to execute_

 _2\. That’s very difficult, ideally possible for a competitor to respond to_

 _3\. And solves a painful, but overlooked problem_

And then your bigger competitor steals your solution and runs with it.

That's the price of weak patents. Now you need a lot more money to promote and
scale fast.

~~~
enigmatic0202
Point 2 is about figuring out a position that the competitor is unlikely to
want to steal. Maybe it’s not attractive to steal today, maybe it’s
diametrically opposed to their core business, maybe it’s not something they
can execute on, etc.

------
giantg2
If you're an IC at a large firm (like I am), then going against status quo is
a terrible idea...

~~~
enigmatic0202
Not at a large firm. :) The article’s not meant to be a blanket policy, just
arguing that doing more of the same results in... more of the same. Some
company cultures are more open to this than others

~~~
giantg2
I know. I'm just jaded by the things I've experienced.

~~~
enigmatic0202
Ya I’ve been in a similar position in the past. Leaving a big firm is less
risky than you’d think if you’re really over it.

~~~
giantg2
I need to stick around for at least a year. The tech I became an expert in is
obscure, so there aren't any opportunities for me (FileNet, Neoxam). If I can
get better at this new stack (AWS, Python, relearn Java) then I'll have the
option to leave.

~~~
enigmatic0202
Good luck!

