I am becoming more critical on real-life businesses since I started taking the Technology Strategy
class. For instance, I just realized that an ex-colleague of mine have
just started a new company providing semiconductor yield management
software tools and consulting. Being similar with this industry, I
evaluated his business with the principles that I learned from the
strategy class and I don't like what I see. I see 2 main problems with
his business. First, there're no groundbreaking products or services
that his company has to offer. Second, yield management is a saturated
and established sector in the semiconductor industry. The barriers to
entry for a new startup without a breakthrough products or services are
very high to almost impossible. Furthermore, just like any competitive
market, current companies are being squeezed out of the market because
of competition. I am a huge supporter of entrepreneurship but I feel
that pursuing a well-established market without groundbreaking products
or services simply doesn't sound like a sound strategy to me.
On other business news, I have just learned that Adobe had just
acquired Macromedia. With that move, Adobe practically has the entire
computer graphics market cornered. However, will the merger of two
different company cultures be seamless? But tactical questions aside, I
suspect that Adobe is making the first move to acquire Macromedia out
of fear that Microsoft may do it before Adobe does. Perhaps, this makes sense since
Microsoft never really got a foothold in the computer graphics market
and acquiring Macromedia seems like a good strategic move for the
software giant. In terms of new products and the Internet, coupled with
Adobe's own product offerings like Acrobat and Photoshop, Adobe will
also receive a diverse portfolio of Internet enabling products such as
Flash and Dreamweaver from this acquisition. Is Adobe also trying to
corner the Internet market with this acquistion? Maybe this acquisition
is starting to make sense to me now.