> So what’s the lesson for future business leaders? Someone has to be first.

Let it be someone else. Maybe spinoff promising new ideas where you can't follow others. If you can find ideas to be second on, look at old product annpuncements from companies that tend to be too early and shut down products that don't have engagement. Microsoft and Yahoo are good ones.

Or, do the new idea, patent the hell out of it, let it die, and when the idea comes around again, get some licensing revenue.

The problem with Microsoft being a first mover is they're too big. A small line of business is a problem for most big companies. It acrues too little customer oriented development to grow, because the numbers don't justify investment; but it acrues all the corporate cruft development and the product becomes hard to pivot under the weight of three rebrands.

> Let it be someone else.

But this can't work. Then why would anyone innovate? I reject the assertion that it's impossible to innovate and develop a viable product. My question is what makes a company able to do both?

Apple is the often sung master of this.

Jobs waited for the right time for mobile and tablets. Apple also waited for smart watches as well. Same goes for Car Play. They seemed to have ran out of patience waiting for AR/VR.0

There was a company called Kosmo (Kosmo?) during the first .com bubble. Basically door dash / Uber eats but way too early.

Sure but “be second” doesn’t help that first mover. What incentive is there to innovate if your product is doomed to fail? What can a company do to both innovate and develop a viable product?

Are the corporate structures and cultures necessary for this just that different?

First movers do sometimes win, Netflix, Uber, Amazon.

Also VCs have to invest their funds in something! :D

The key is matching innovation with timing. History is filled with great ideas done decades, or even a century, too early.