We see many big companies failing because of the most common phenomena of stack fallacy. This is the misconception where we see big databases and think that their deployment is really easy.
Stack fallacy- a tech myth
Mathematicians believe everything in the world is nothing else but Math. We suffer from a similar misconception in the business world too.
Database companies think that SaaS applications are just the ones having backend databases linked with them. Thus making them believe that they could do so and easily be the best competitor in this place.
Database companies think that SaaS applications are just the ones having backend databases linked with them. Thus making them believe that they could do so and easily be the best competitor in this place.
The most dominating in the cloud IaaS marketplace is the one by Amazon. The ones with lesser layered technologies still struggle independent of the fact that they are themselves the ones who have bought this technology. Hence VMware falls short of any chance to even compete against AWS, however all AWS are dependent on VM technologies for running. For the same reason Oracle has been defeated by Salesforce in customer relationship management SaaS. Oracle can do nothing about it, infact their database runs Salesforce too.
Apple is also an affected victim. Building chips and programming languages is another concern. However, constructing Apps has really been a trauma remembering how they strive to compete by those photo sharing apps and maps they brought up.
History shall never deny of the fact that even IBM was badly disillusioned when it thought nothing of the software but let Microsoft dominate the Operating System marketplace.
Larry Ellison in 1990 saw the advent of SAP distributing enterprise resource planning software for automation. He did nothing about it as he thought of it something to meager to take action upon. It was when he was taken aback by the same stack of rows, columns and flowcharts. He spent tremendous dollars trying to be dominant but resulted with somewhat mixed results, for the market had been already been won over! Oracle here however made its comeback by getting itself associated to PeopleSoft and Siebel.
big companies failing continuously over history- why?
Simply put, this is human nature, one will always over evaluate their knowledge. For instance, very few would say that they cannot challenge Intel or SAP. Just because they are working in a fairly successful database providing firm they think it is child’s play to build up what they think are mere tables and workflows.
Having the knowledge of tools is not the key to success; it is the nature of understanding the needs underlying customer needs. No database engineer would understand what the expectations of a supply chain consumer are.
The fact is that it is easier to succeed if you start down the stack rather than upwards. Reason being that one himself is the lower layer person and hence understands it. Though Apple did not know the techs to build the ideal processor, yet it knew exactly how and what it needed. Thus highlighting that expertise could be bought but underlying nature cannot.
Therefore Apple flourished while producing chips but failed in yielding Apple Maps.
Google Fails
when we talk about big companies failing, we can’t forget Google. Google had its own email graph and optimized search yet did not succeed at building its apps. Hence, knowing where to start and its management is also a kind of an art to master.
This failure however might be too obvious yet is very very commonly prevailing among the big monsters. Reason being they emphasize on what is to be build rather than focusing how it should be built.
