Nathan Myhrvold Quotes

Pretty much, Apple and Dell are the only ones in this industry making money. They make it by being Wal-Mart. We make it by innovation.

Advertising is the price companies pay for being unoriginal.

Microsoft has had two goals in the last 10 years. One was to copy the Mac, and the other was to copy Lotus' success in the spreadsheet - basically, the applications business. And over the course of the last 10 years, Microsoft accomplished both of those goals. And now they are completely lost.

Apple, at its best, isn't a technology leader.

The PC is successful because we're all benefiting from the competition with each other. If Twitter comes along, our games benefit. If Nvidia makes better graphics technology, all the games are going to shine. If we come out with a better game, people are going to buy more PCs.

You've got to figure out how you're going to come in and significantly impact and redefine a market such that you become a market share leader in it.

The only one that seems to be able to hold the business is Disney. They do it is because they have a fabulous philosophy about marketing- but even they wavered.

When you start losing market share, it's really tough to gain it back; you need the product portfolio and presence in many markets.

It's always about mindshare, not market share.

People are going to copy your product if you build great stuff. Just because Yahoo has a search box doesn't make it Google.

You've got to remember there's intense competition between Microsoft and Amazon.

All things can be done by every company in the world. Apple builds a phone, and so does Samsung. It's not about being different but about being better at what you do.

Tomorrow I will have new competitors such as Google, Microsoft, and Facebook coming into my garden. I'd rather focus on the competition of tomorrow than combine with the competition of today.

Not all of Microsoft's businesses are successful, but they have every technology possible.

What can we learn from the battle between data and design? What can we learn from the relationship between Google and Apple? Clearly no one school of thought is right: Apple and Google are both wildly successful and profitable companies that changed the world.

We could be the biggest pantyhose seller in America, but we don't want to weaken the link in shoppers' minds between Home Depot and do-it-yourself projects.

Although the flagship brand, Pepsi-Cola, has always been second to Coca-Cola, the Frito-Lay division is ten times larger than its largest competitor, Diamond Foods, Inc., of San Francisco. Its products take up whole aisles at Walmart.

The way companies hang on to their marketshare is by being scared.

I think, particularly in our tech industry, this is an industry that has violent innovation and then commoditization, and it's a cycle of innovation/commoditization.

Leverage your brand. You shouldn't let two guys in a garage eat your shorts.

In a globalized world, one application can spread like wildfire and there's only one winning company, which means you have to invest more than you've ever had.

I'd rather Apple cannibalize Apple than somebody else cannibalize Apple.

Except in very narrow cases, where there's breakthrough science that needs patent production, worrying about competitors is a waste of time. If you can't out iterate someone who is trying to copy you, you're toast anyway.

When you compete with Wal-Mart, even if you think you've found a niche don't ever become complacent.

If you're competitor-focused, you have to wait until there is a competitor doing something. Being customer-focused allows you to be more pioneering.