Business is a graveyard. We don't like to admit that because it’s terrifying, but for every massive success story like Netflix or Starbucks, there are thousands of bleached bones in the sand. When we look at an industry and see a titan standing alone, we often say "and there was one" as if it were destiny. It wasn't. It was usually a mix of ruthless timing, capital warfare, and the kind of luck that makes professional gamblers sweat.
History loves a winner. It polishes the rough edges off the story until the lone survivor looks like a genius who saw the future in a crystal ball. But if you actually dig into the mechanics of how these "last man standing" scenarios happen, it's rarely about having the best product. It’s about who didn’t run out of cash during the winter.
The Myth of the Better Mousetrap
You've probably heard that if you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door. That is a lie. In the real world, the person with the "okay" mousetrap and a ten-million-dollar marketing budget usually wins. Look at the early days of the social media wars. MySpace had the momentum. Friendster had the first-mover advantage. But eventually, the dust settled, the bodies were cleared away, and there was one dominant player left: Facebook.
Was Facebook fundamentally better code? Ask any developer who worked on the platform in 2005. It was buggy. It was limited. But it had a specific viral loop and a "velvet rope" strategy that the others couldn't replicate. While Friendster’s servers were melting under the load, Facebook was scaling methodically through elite universities. They didn't win by being first; they won by being the last ones with a functioning login page.
Why Markets Narrow Down to a Single Giant
Markets naturally move toward consolidation. It’s an entropy of sorts. Economists call it "Network Effects," but basically, it just means that a service becomes more valuable as more people use it. If all your friends are on WhatsApp, you aren't going to start a group chat on a random encrypted app no one has heard of, even if that app has cooler stickers.
🔗 Read more: Is Teammate One Word? Why Most People Still Get It Wrong
This creates a "winner-take-most" dynamic. In the 1990s, the browser wars were a bloodbath. Netscape Navigator was the king of the hill. It felt like they owned the internet. Then Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows. Suddenly, the friction of downloading a different browser was too high for the average user. By 2002, Netscape was a ghost. One day they owned 90% of the market, and then, seemingly overnight, the industry looked around and there was one choice left for the masses.
The Survival of the Funded
Money is the ultimate oxygen. In the startup world, "and there was one" is often the result of who raised the biggest Series C round. We saw this with ride-sharing. Dozens of companies tried to launch. Sidecar, Hailo, Juno—they’re all gone or acquired. Uber and Lyft fought a war of attrition where they basically paid people to take rides. Uber had more venture capital. They could afford to bleed longer.
When you can lose a billion dollars a year and keep the lights on, you eventually outlast the guy who actually needs to make a profit. It’s a cynical way to look at innovation, but it’s the truth of the current economic cycle. The survivor isn't the most efficient; they're the most resilient to debt.
Lessons from the Great Consolidation
If you're an entrepreneur or an investor, you have to recognize when a market is heading toward a "and there was one" conclusion. If the product relies on everyone being in the same place (like a marketplace or a social network), the second-place finisher is often just the "first-place loser."
Look at eBay. There have been a thousand auction sites. Most had lower fees. Some had better interfaces. But eBay has the buyers because it has the sellers, and it has the sellers because it has the buyers. Breaking that loop is almost impossible once the "one" has been established.
- Be a Niche King: If you can't be the global "one," be the "one" for a specific group. Don't build a general search engine; build a search engine for medical researchers.
- Watch the Burn Rate: Most companies die because they try to grow faster than their infrastructure allows.
- Identify the Moat: Is the survivor winning because of a patent, a network effect, or just a massive bank account?
What Happens When Only One Is Left?
Innovation usually dies when competition ends. When there is only one dominant player, they stop trying to please you and start trying to squeeze you. We see this in the utility sector and, increasingly, in Big Tech. Without the threat of a rival, there’s no reason to take risks. The "one" becomes a rent-collector rather than an innovator.
✨ Don't miss: Omicron Restaurant West Bend: Why This Local Icon Actually Closed
This is why antitrust laws exist, though they often move too slowly to matter. By the time the government realizes a monopoly has formed, the competitors have already been liquidated or absorbed. The era of the "Generalist Giant" might be peaking, though. We are seeing a shift toward decentralized platforms where the "one" isn't a company, but a protocol. Whether that actually happens remains to be seen.
Tactical Steps for Navigating Monopolistic Markets
If you find yourself competing against a "The One" style incumbent, don't run head-first into them. You'll lose. Instead:
- Exploit the Overhead: Large survivors are slow. They have meetings about meetings. Use your speed to capture small sub-segments of their market before they can react.
- Focus on Privacy or Ethics: Often, the survivor wins by being ruthless with data or labor. There is always a percentage of the market that will pay a premium to not use the giant.
- Wait for the Platform Shift: IBM was the "one" until the PC arrived. Microsoft was the "one" until the web arrived. Google was the "one" until mobile arrived. The king only falls when the ground itself moves.
The story of "and there was one" is rarely a fairy tale. It’s a survival horror story. If you want to be the one standing at the end, stop looking at the features of the winners and start looking at the mistakes of the losers. Most of the time, the winner didn't do anything magical; they just stayed in the game one day longer than everyone else.