Usually it is better to examine failures more. This is partly due to the asymmetry between creation and destruction. Only the paranoid survive. This is also why people tend to have bad dreams.
There is a big difference between a lucrative monopolistic position (created by intellectual-property law and the huge costs of designing and fabbing microprocessors) and many of the other situations firms find themselves in.
Also, I do not see how your link supports your position. Is Grove not saying that he found himself in a postion in which if Intel had failed even once, it would never have recovered its greatness? How is that
Usually it is better to examine failures more. This is partly due to the asymmetry between creation and destruction. Only the paranoid survive. This is also why people tend to have bad dreams.
There is a big difference between a lucrative monopolistic position (created by intellectual-property law and the huge costs of designing and fabbing microprocessors) and many of the other situations firms find themselves in.
Also, I do not see how your link supports your position. Is Grove not saying that he found himself in a postion in which if Intel had failed even once, it would never have recovered its greatness? How is that