- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Companies That Don't Innovate
Posted on 12/12/11 at 6:36 pm
Posted on 12/12/11 at 6:36 pm
The Amazon thread brought up Circuit City as a company that didn't innovate. I think watching/following companies that didn't innovate and now can't innovate is very interesting. Some examples would be Kmart and Burger King vs. Walmart and McDonalds. Once the company gets "behind the 8 ball" they don't have cash to innovate and they will eventually die. This is why McDonalds and Walmart shed their buildings every decade (or two). McDonalds just typically keeps the same real estate unlike Walmart.
What are some other good examples?
What are some other good examples?
6
Posted on 12/12/11 at 7:06 pm to nolanola
Radio Shack
Posted on 12/12/11 at 7:08 pm to nolanola
Quiznos and Subway?
They had the whole toasty thing... but since then I've forgotten about them.
Subway jumped on the healthy bandwagon and became huge.
They had the whole toasty thing... but since then I've forgotten about them.
Subway jumped on the healthy bandwagon and became huge.
Posted on 12/12/11 at 7:23 pm to Carlton Banks
Yahoo and Google
Posted on 12/12/11 at 7:42 pm to Paul Allen
quote:
Radio Shack
I don't know, they do seem to have some sort of a niche market for odd connectors and what have you.
That and old people, so, I guess I can see it.
Also, RIM, at the moment comes to mind, along with Nokia.
Sears fell from the top pretty hard, but is far from failing. The history of sears is fascinating, they used to sell houses in the same fashion that Ikea sells furniture, ready to assemble, stamped pieces with instructions.
Blockbuster is a gimme, and they even had a shot too. When netflix was coming on, blockbuster decided it would follow, and offered the great service of unlimited in store swaps, for free. Soon after, they changed their pricing structure, and people went for the cheaper Netflix. Seems as though they could have undercut Netflix by selling convenience and instant gratification.
This post was edited on 12/12/11 at 8:26 pm
Posted on 12/12/11 at 8:10 pm to TigerDeBaiter
Aol and Netscape
Posted on 12/12/11 at 8:29 pm to nolanola
Rite aid vs. Walgreens/CVS.
It seems like every Walgreens/CVS is on a prime corner lot at a busy intersection, while half the rite aids are in aging shopping centers.
It seems like every Walgreens/CVS is on a prime corner lot at a busy intersection, while half the rite aids are in aging shopping centers.
Posted on 12/12/11 at 8:37 pm to Ric Flair
Really stretching the term innovate in this thread.
Posted on 12/13/11 at 9:57 am to kfizzle85
quote:
Really stretching the term innovate in this thread.
Yeah; McDonald's one great innovation was in 1950 when they realized Henry Ford's theories could apply to hamburgers. Since then their greatest innovations have been in advertising.
As for Radio Shack, they are apparently one of the leading cell phone retailers for some reason.
Posted on 12/13/11 at 10:03 am to nolanola
quote:
Once the company gets "behind the 8 ball" they don't have cash to innovate and they will eventually die.
MT frowns on using cash to innovate. Need debt.
Posted on 12/13/11 at 10:06 am to nolanola
quote:
McDonalds just typically keeps the same real estate unlike Walmart.
McD's is a real estate company.
Posted on 12/13/11 at 10:47 am to !Tiger
Don't be bitter bro. MT frowns on shitty finance (and shitty posters). In fact, I would suggest to you that the vast majority of innovation (in the real sense of the word, not the business process stuff being discussed here) is done without hardly any debt (VC). But that's not because debt wouldn't be a better option, its because they can't get any.
Posted on 12/13/11 at 11:09 am to nolanola
quote:You are kidding right? Google is one of the most innovative tech companies around.
Companies That Don't Innovate
Yahoo and Google
Posted on 12/13/11 at 11:11 am to homeskillet
quote:
You are kidding right? Google is one of the most innovative tech companies around.
I'm pretty sure he's saying that yahoo didn't innovate and google did, and that's why they're on top.
Posted on 12/13/11 at 11:16 am to iAmBatman
quote:O I C
I'm pretty sure he's saying that yahoo didn't innovate and google did, and that's why they're on top.
Then I agree
Posted on 12/13/11 at 11:32 am to homeskillet
quote:
I'm pretty sure he's saying that yahoo didn't innovate and google did, and that's why they're on top.
Yes - I meant in as in Yahoo vs. Google.
Although not a true failure (yet)... HP vs. Apple.
Posted on 12/13/11 at 11:36 am to nolanola
HP has some history. They are heading in a different direction and if my memory serves me correctly, they will be moving into enterprise solutions almost exclusively.
I think that is a bad comparison as well. Think of the run HP had in the early computing boom. Now think of Apple back then...they sucked. It is their gadgets, smart phones, etc... that are driving them now. I think all tech companies eventually level out at some point. HP has leveled out and Apple will too, although not in the foreseeable future.
I think that is a bad comparison as well. Think of the run HP had in the early computing boom. Now think of Apple back then...they sucked. It is their gadgets, smart phones, etc... that are driving them now. I think all tech companies eventually level out at some point. HP has leveled out and Apple will too, although not in the foreseeable future.
Posted on 12/13/11 at 12:17 pm to homeskillet
Eh. HP is a conglomerate formed by two different companies in a huge merger that didn't sit very well with one side because of the massive price. Apple has no history like that, and they really do different things anyway. HP sells products that have long been commoditized, Apple designs proprietary products that have been replicated and are becoming commoditized to a large degree, but they have built a walled garden to prevent their products from becoming commoditized. HP couldn't do that with printers and laptops. Also, HP denounced their plans to spin off the consumer business when they axed the old CEO.
eta: So I agree, its a bad comparison.
eta: So I agree, its a bad comparison.
This post was edited on 12/13/11 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 12/13/11 at 3:58 pm to kfizzle85
quote:
Eh. HP is a conglomerate formed by two different companies in a huge merger that didn't sit very well with one side because of the massive price. Apple has no history like that, and they really do different things anyway. HP sells products that have long been commoditized, Apple designs proprietary products that have been replicated and are becoming commoditized to a large degree, but they have built a walled garden to prevent their products from becoming commoditized. HP couldn't do that with printers and laptops. Also, HP denounced their plans to spin off the consumer business when they axed the old CEO.
eta: So I agree, its a bad comparison.
Do you disagree that Apple and HP are competitors?
HP could have non-commoditized their product just like Apple did. Also, Apple has gone into existing markets and didn't commoditize their products (absolute best example is the iPhone).
Posted on 12/13/11 at 4:08 pm to nolanola
I don't see Apple and HP as major competitors. Apple does very little enterprise level stuff. Also, the home computing market is targeted @ 2 different groups of people.
Apple is more of a competitor against Microsoft and Google (the Android division).
Apple is more of a competitor against Microsoft and Google (the Android division).
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News