if a is supposed to disrupt an , why do almost get even years after their competitors existed? even if the business model is the same? some examples:

  • uber vs lyft

  • grubhub vs seamless

  • doordash vs ubereats

  • belly vs fivestars

given that there’s an inclination for the & entrepreneurs to laud over groundbreaking “disruptive” ideas, what is the reason VCs back copycat competitors with the SAME business model in the same industry? Not even a different niche…?

Am I missing something here? Every other post I see on r/startups or r/entrepreneur has comments/feedback from posters asking “what makes you different from X? Seems pretty identical & non-compelling?” Yet there is nothing different between Lyft or Uber. Or UberEats vs DoorDash or AmazonEats…in fact, most of my friends interchangeably use all of these apps & have no strong preference for one over the other because they all do the same thing.

any ideas? i’m very interested to know!

Source link
thanks you RSS link
( https://www.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/7x65u1/how_why_do_identical_startups_get_funded/)


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here