I don't understand this argument. It's a conspiracy similar to the suppressed cancer cure. It sounds reasonable at first glance but when you break it down it doesn't make sense.
Any company, including the market leaders would instantly make billions with a cheap long lasting tire and would render all competitors as obsolete. All other tires would become buggy whips in comparison...
I mentioned this downthread, but a classical example is Kodak missing out on the digital revolution in cameras.
They had a technological lead, but were afraid to cannibalize and threaten their cash cow (film). In the meantime others with less to lose, jumped in and eventually took over the market and Kodak became a shell of its former self. Point being, it's not unheard of for companies to be slow to adjust to a new realization.
Sony owns a content distribution network, record label, gaming studio, film studio, tvs, phones, media players and storage medium - basically they own the _entire stack_ and yet Netflix and Spotify managed to wade into their territory and outmanoeuvre them.
Alternative thought here. Sony is one of the biggest players in music rights, regardless of whether spotify or apple music or Sony's own platform comes out on top, Sony makes bank on it. Perhaps Sony evaluated the costs of creating a streaming platform and figured it was more effective to stick to licensing. Streaming services are still making losses but Sony sure isn't with their licensing deals.
And in the film category, Sony owns blu-ray. Cannibalisation is a real reason not to pursue certain ventures. Blu-ray sales in 2014, when netflix was already established as a streaming service, were still above $25 billion. At the time it might have been deemed a poor investment to try compete with your own physical sales by creating another streaming service. Keep in mind Netflix doesn't even turn a profit in the billions these days, yet a declining blu-ray still makes more than $10 billion a year.
So I'm not sure outmanoeuvre is the appropriate word just yet, perhaps in time it will be, but Sony might still think its choices were the better ones and I'd probably side with them.
I get your point, and that kind of thinking is probably why they didn't go for it - understandably the risk appetite and innovative culture of a MNC is different to a burgeoning startup.
For the record, Netflix is now worth about an order of magnitude more than Sony. Should Sony have tried? Maybe. In a lot of ways they were better equipped to try but they didn't and now someone is gaining a disproportionate share of global eyeball time
How is Netflix worth an order of magnitude more than Sony? Their stock is valued at about 3 times more, which is not anywhere near an order of magnitude. That phrase is thrown around a fair amount to just mean "very big", it doesn't.
whoops mental arithmetic fail - you're totally right, not an order of magnitude more.
Still 3x is pretty impressive, and it's still disappointing (IMO) that Sony failed to launch a relevant streaming service given their expertise and interests.
If Michelin could produce a tire that lasted 10x as long, they probably could not sell it for 10x the price. They probably can't increase their market share by 10x either to make up for it. So while making such a tire might still be a winner for them, it isn't crystal clear.
It would be a more obvious good deal for a smaller tire maker who has more market share to gain. But they're less capable of sustaining a huge R&D budget. I just hope the solution isn't that expensive.
Yes, it depends on how much better the tire is (2x, 10x), but I still think this argument doesn't make sense. If Michelin don't use the technology, then another company might discover the secret tire and produce it and wipe out the competition in the industry.
From Michelin's perspective they would have a golden goose of a product and would want to exploit that for as much profit as possible...
Also, they're not just going to gain market share they would literally be the market-leaders in a new industry of long-lasting tires...
Michelin is a premium tire brand, and their prices are on the high end. I just priced out a set of Michelin LTX tires for our SUV and they were $190 each, 70,000 mile warranty.
They have already done something similar in 1950 with radial tires and I think they will do it again if they can (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_tire). Additionally you don't need 10x market share, you just need to go from 3% margin to 30% margin for example with your 10 times better product to make it even.
Any company, including the market leaders would instantly make billions with a cheap long lasting tire and would render all competitors as obsolete. All other tires would become buggy whips in comparison...
So, why would they suppress that?