Companies like Facebook and Google are definitely not the last companies in their markets. Being in a monopoly position does not grant you magic protection from competitors. It probably even hurts more than it helps in the long term. Google and Facebook have not radically innovated since their inceptions. Google is still essentially a better AltaVista/Hotmail and Facebook is still essentially a better MySpace. And ye…
Instagram was worth $1 billon to Facebook in April 2012. WhatsApp is worth $22 billion in cash and stock to Facebook in October 2014. A lot can change in two and a half years, including relative valuations.
Lecture 5, How to Start a Startup: Peter Thiel
21–30 of 85 posts
Re: Lecture 5, How to Start a Startup: Peter Thiel
#22I enjoyed the lecture, but I somewhat disagree with the scientist statement about how Y is close to 0. I think X is the one that is 0 because when the scientist makes an invention the market is so new that there is no market yet. Within this low market the Y value will be high because that is the only thing that exist in it. Am I the only one who thinks this way? or am i misunderstanding his statement. It could just…
Yes, Einstein seemed not interested in making $1 billion.
But, let's see: What about Steinmetz, electrical engineering, and GE? What about A. Viterbi and Qualcomm? What about the inventors of RSA, that is, Rivest, Shmmir, and Adleman? What about the researcher founders of some small research oriented pharmaceutical companies? Then there is research mathematician James Simons who used something between his ears to make ~$12 billion or so.
And there's R. Bixby, long a prof at Rice, lone a leading researcher in mathematical programming, at one time Editor in Chief of Mathematical Programming, and creator of CPLEX, now owned by IBM. The story goes that Bixby has a relatively nice house in Houston.
And I would differ with Thiel on the Wright brothers. They sold copies of their first successful flyer to all who wanted to get into aviation on the ground floor. And there was Curtiss Wright that was still a viable airplane engine builder in WWII. There was a lot of progress, call it research and/or engineering, in aircraft engines from Kitty Hawk to WWII.
Oh, I almost forgot: Edison who was definitely interested in money.
Sometimes the researchers do not much want to get paid a lot, but sometimes they do and do.
Re: Lecture 5, How to Start a Startup: Peter Thiel
#23I enjoyed the lecture, but I somewhat disagree with the scientist statement about how Y is close to 0. I think X is the one that is 0 because when the scientist makes an invention the market is so new that there is no market yet. Within this low market the Y value will be high because that is the only thing that exist in it. Am I the only one who thinks this way? or am i misunderstanding his statement. It could just…
Maybe Thiel was trying to keep the arguments simple. Basically you are correct. Thiel's example of Uncle Albert is not so good: Einstein long had all the money he wanted and, then, what he really wanted, free time to pursue research in physics. Yes, Einstein seemed not interested in making $1 billion. But, let's see: What about Steinmetz, electrical engineering, and GE? What about A. Viterbi and Qualcomm? What about…
Re: Lecture 5, How to Start a Startup: Peter Thiel
#24One point he made at the end was good: Look for things that are new. Indeed, venture capital very much needs what is quite exceptional at least in exit value but also in whatever the heck it is, likely new, that leads to that value.
But it seems to me that in the quest for work that is now, powerful, and valuable, Thiel is overlooking something both big and important and, actually, close to where he lives in SV: He is overlooking some of the crucial aspects of how SV became important, i.e., got there.
And what was that? Sure, US national security via decades of high spending on electronics for aerospace, yes, in SV.
I do agree with Thiel that it is better if a founder has a really good idea for a startup and has this without "get out of the building" feedback from customers responding to agile developments.
Okay, here's something big, solidly in the background of SV, that Thiel didn't emphasize: Suppose a founder thinks of a big problem, that is, a big need.
Next, he wants a good solution: So, he wants, say, the first good or a much better solution to the big problem. And with that solution he wants a monopoly. Good.
Now, how to get that solution? Well, SV long showed an important way -- research. And the researchers do not necessarily have to settle for Thiel's Y = 0%.
So, for US national security we have a long list of fantastic solutions, from research, heavily done in SV, for really challenging problems. Point: Such work can be done. That is, when want a really good solution to a big problem, in the case of US national security, research in SV has a terrific track record.
Yes, some of that research was expensive, but not all research is! A lot of the best research is one guy with paper and pencil. E.g., did Thiel mention Einstein?
But, wait, there's more! Now SV likes computing, that is, exploiting Moore's law. And Thiel said he liked software. Okay, it's about information. And for techniques to take in available data, manipulate it, and put out valuable information? Sure, and may I have the envelope, please (drum roll): Right, and the winner is applied mathematics, commonly done with paper and pencil, by one guy. Then convert to software and proceed! For US national security, SV did a lot of that.
Well, then, since such work can be done, do such work on commercial problems. That way, get such good technology and have a monopoly, the first good or a much better solution, much better technology, etc. I didn't hear Thiel explain the promise of this approach and thought that he should have.
Re: Lecture 5, How to Start a Startup: Peter Thiel
#25Re: Lecture 5, How to Start a Startup: Peter Thiel
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe Thiel was trying to keep the arguments simple. Basically you are correct. Thiel's example of Uncle Albert is not so good: Einstein long had all the money he wanted and, then, what he really wanted, free time to pursue research in physics. Yes, Einstein seemed not interested in making $1 billion. But, let's see: What about Steinmetz, electrical engineering, and GE? What about A. Viterbi and Qualcomm? What about…
Or what about the computer scientist Lawrence Page? He managed to extract some value from his contributions. This argument of Thiel's is only correct if you regard any scientist who makes money as a non-scientist.
But your example is correct.
I get the impression that somehow Thiel is a bit down on the money making potential of research.
Re: Lecture 5, How to Start a Startup: Peter Thiel
#27 "You're the smartest physicist of the 20th century
-- you come up with special relativity, you come up
with general relativity -- you don't get to be a
billionnaire; you don't even get to be a millionaire."
Actually, Einstein WAS a millionaire. His net worth was around $1 million. http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/richest...Re: Lecture 5, How to Start a Startup: Peter Thiel
#28Thiel's IMPORTANT point is that small monopolies lead to bigger ones and you can not start by going after a big monopoly. That is his point that is not only spot on but really, really important and actionable.
Re: Lecture 5, How to Start a Startup: Peter Thiel
#29Thiel's Einstein example was wrong: "You're the smartest physicist of the 20th century -- you come up with special relativity, you come up with general relativity -- you don't get to be a billionnaire; you don't even get to be a millionaire." Actually, Einstein WAS a millionaire. His net worth was around $1 million. http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/richest...
2) Being worth $1m is still terrible for having done everything he did.