Subscribe to CFO Forecasting
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form
In business, timing isn’t just about being fast; it’s about being right. This brings us to one of the most debated strategies in the world of product development: should a company strive to be the first to market or take its time and release the best possible version? The "first-mover advantage" is often seen as a critical step to success, but there's increasing evidence that being the best, rather than the first, may have a more lasting impact.
Consider the ridesharing giants Uber and Lyft. Uber, the first in the game, set the tone for what ridesharing could be, seizing market share before many even understood what it was. Lyft came second, following closely on Uber’s heels. And yet, while Uber commands greater global recognition, Lyft carved out its own niche by focusing on customer experience, highlighting a critical point in the “first vs. best” debate: sometimes, it’s not about who’s first, but who delivers what customers really want.
The first-mover advantage is a concept frequently celebrated in business schools and boardrooms. The thinking goes something like this: being first to market enables a company to set the rules, define the category, and claim loyal customers before anyone else has a chance. In theory, this sounds fantastic.
Historically, companies like Coca-Cola, which dominated the soft drink market by arriving early, and eBay, which was one of the first in online auctions, are often cited as proof of the power of this approach. They were able to establish strong brand awareness, create barriers to entry, and secure prime positioning that made it difficult for others to catch up. But the reality isn't always so clear cut.
The reason this theory works in some cases is that the first to market can capture a disproportionate amount of the customer base early on, influencing user behavior and becoming synonymous with the product itself. Uber didn’t just launch a ridesharing service; it became the name that defined the entire industry. However, being first also comes with significant risks, not the least of which is product quality and sustainability.
Take Webvan, an online grocery delivery service in the late 1990s, often referenced as a case study in first-mover failure. It rushed to scale too quickly, building warehouses and investing heavily in infrastructure, only to collapse under its own weight when the market wasn’t ready. It wasn’t until a decade later that companies like Instacart revived the concept, taking lessons from Webvan’s failure. Webvan was first, but it certainly wasn’t the best.
Returning to Uber, the company moved fast, aggressively expanding to hundreds of cities across the globe. Its early mover status allowed it to dominate ridesharing, establishing itself as a household name. However, that speed came at a cost. Uber’s meteoric rise was also accompanied by scandals—issues ranging from labor practices to internal corporate culture problems that were magnified by the pressure to grow quickly.
Lyft, in contrast, entered the market a little later but took a more measured approach. Rather than just chasing global dominance, it focused on cultivating a different brand. Lyft became known for being “the friendly ridesharing app,” with pink mustaches on cars and a focus on creating a positive driver-passenger experience. Lyft’s slower, more deliberate approach won it favor among certain customer segments, and while it may not have overtaken Uber in market share, it established itself as a credible and quality-driven alternative.
What Lyft demonstrated is that while Uber captured market share, being first didn’t insulate Uber from problems caused by that breakneck speed. A slower, more deliberate release strategy allowed Lyft to build a brand that resonated deeply with customers, differentiating itself not by being first but by being more thoughtful.
On the other side of the spectrum sits Apple. For decades, Apple has built its reputation not on being first but on being the best. This philosophy, instilled under Steve Jobs and carried on under Tim Cook, has positioned Apple as the gold standard in consumer electronics.
Consider the iPhone. Apple wasn’t the first to release a smartphone—that honor goes to IBM’s Simon in 1994, followed by devices from Nokia, BlackBerry, and Palm. But when Apple launched the iPhone in 2007, it revolutionized the market, bringing a level of user-friendly design and innovation that had never been seen before. The iPhone wasn’t the first; it was just better.
Tim Cook’s Apple continues this philosophy. In a recent interview, Cook discussed the upcoming Vision Pro headset, noting that while the market had already seen virtual and augmented reality devices, Apple wasn’t interested in being first. Instead, Cook emphasized Apple’s focus on making the best possible product—a device that would change how we perceive and interact with digital content. By waiting, Apple is refining the technology, ensuring that its product doesn’t just compete but redefines the category. This philosophy has helped make Apple the most valuable company in the world, consistently delivering high-quality, refined products that resonate deeply with consumers.
One of the dangers of rushing to market is sacrificing quality in favor of speed. Samsung learned this lesson the hard way with its Galaxy Note 7, which famously suffered from battery issues that caused the phones to overheat and catch fire. In its haste to compete with the iPhone, Samsung compromised on quality control, leading to one of the most expensive product recalls in tech history. The fallout was severe, with significant damage to Samsung’s reputation.
Similarly, Microsoft’s Zune, an early entrant in the MP3 player market, failed to make a significant impact despite being one of the first to challenge Apple’s iPod. The device lacked the polish and ecosystem integration that made the iPod so successful. In hindsight, Microsoft’s rush to enter the market early hurt its chances of success. While the Zune was first to challenge Apple, it wasn’t a well-rounded product, and ultimately, it couldn’t compete.
The key lesson here is that rushing to market may win the initial headlines, but it’s the long-term quality of the product that dictates lasting success. When companies prioritize speed over substance, they risk alienating customers who expect reliability, usability, and consistency.
So, how should companies decide whether to go first or wait to be the best? The answer depends on a number of factors: the nature of the product, the competitive landscape, the company's resources, and the overall market readiness.
In some cases, being first can give a company a crucial lead, allowing it to establish itself as the dominant player before competitors can catch up. In fast-moving industries like tech or social media, first-mover advantage can mean everything. Facebook, for instance, wasn’t the first social media platform—MySpace and Friendster preceded it—but it was the first to capture the mass market effectively, scaling with agility and focus.
However, when product quality is paramount, it’s often wiser to wait. This is particularly true in markets where customer trust and brand reputation are critical to long-term success. Apple has mastered the art of arriving late to a market but doing so with a product that reshapes the landscape, a strategy that’s worked for everything from smartphones to smartwatches.
The first-mover advantage is a seductive business theory, but it’s not a one-size-fits-all strategy. Companies that rush to market may win the initial race, but in the marathon of business success, it’s often the company that delivers the best product that ultimately prevails.
Whether a business chooses to be the first or to wait, the key is understanding what customers truly value—speed, or quality? If Uber and Apple teach us anything, it’s that the answer isn’t always straightforward. But one thing is clear: rushing out a flawed product can haunt a company for years, while taking the time to get it right can create a lasting legacy.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form