3 ms·

A meta-question for those who follow Stratechery or the Exponent Podcast and are perhaps more deeply engrained in some of these companies being discussed... Do

A meta-question for those who follow Stratechery or the Exponent Podcast and are perhaps more deeply engrained in some of these companies being discussed... Do you find the analysis to typically be pretty thorough and accurate? I love the podcast and I think I've listened to every single one at this point, and they always talk through their reasoning at length in a logical, (mostly) structured manner, which I love. However in the back of my mind there's this little voice that says "they used to be management consultants and still do consulting, so of course they are good at making their arguments sound convincing--but how sound are they really from a strategic standpoint?" Some of it we'll never know because it is in the realm of "what-ifs" but just curious for others' thoughts on the signal-to-noise ratio of their content.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mkeeter 10y ago
I have the same meta-question, and would love to hear what other folks think – I enjoy Exponent a lot, but feel like it veers into just-so stories [1], and the theories / models could be interpreted to argue for any particular outcome In particular, Episode 101 left me feeling skeptical [2]. Aggregation theory / unbundling somehow predicts both Netflix winning and Spotify losing, but I was left with the impression that – had things gone the other way – an equally persuasive argument could have been made. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story [2] http://exponent.fm/episode-101-tv-is-the-oak-tree/ http://exponent.fm/episode-101-tv-is-the-oak-tree/
dilemma 10y ago
Stratechery is generally very high quality but there's a lot of storytelling and a lot of ideology in there. I'd even call it magical thinking; something to make business analysis exciting for a wider audience than just executives. "The arrival of artificial intelligence" is an example, because AI hasn't arrived and it won't.
- pixl97 10y ago
  >because AI hasn't arrived and it won't. Ah, the AI effect in effect. AI is already here if you go by the original definitions set in the 50/60s. You just keep moving the goalposts as it gets better because "it cant' solve problem X yet" or "it's not quite as smart as a human" or "it hasn't exterminated all of mankind". This is a problem with humans when they don't want to share dominance with something else. Intelligence is simply information processing. AGI is inevitable. ASI is worrisome.
  - clarkmoody 10y ago
    They mentioned that exact point on a recent podcast episode :-)
- lordgrenville 10y ago
  I wonder about this too. I lean towards the side that this is just storytelling in hindsight, but hedge by reading the blog posts every so often. The best way to test this would be to check his history for predictions (or statements that can be adapted into predictions) and see if they turned out. Of course, anyone who could make business predictions with certainty would be starting businesses, not consulting. Perhaps there's still some value in just being able to create taxonomies from past events, as long as they're consistent.
  - xiaoma 10y ago
    An even better metric is someone who publicly makes investments. An excellent non-VC example of this is David Gardener of the The Motley Fool, who publicly announced his stock purchases and rationale before making them. He bought AOL in 1994, Amazon in 1997, Amgen and Starbucks in 1998 and eBay in 1999. In many cases the trades were unpopular for a year or two but you can be sure that his analysis of businesses has carried great weight ever since. It inspired me to take public positions for many years afterward. While my returns weren't quite as good as his, I learned a ton and absolutely crushed the market for 7 years until getting reckless with margin and learning a less pleasant lesson. I'm not sure if this blog makes many actual predictions but if so it would be very instructive to track them.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mkeeter 10y ago

I have the same meta-question, and would love to hear what other folks think – I enjoy Exponent a lot, but feel like it veers into just-so stories [1], and the theories / models could be interpreted to argue for any particular outcome In particular, Episode 101 left me feeling skeptical [2]. Aggregation theory / unbundling somehow predicts both Netflix winning and Spotify losing, but I was left with the impression that – had things gone the other way – an equally persuasive argument could have been made. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story [2] http://exponent.fm/episode-101-tv-is-the-oak-tree/ http://exponent.fm/episode-101-tv-is-the-oak-tree/

dilemma 10y ago

Stratechery is generally very high quality but there's a lot of storytelling and a lot of ideology in there. I'd even call it magical thinking; something to make business analysis exciting for a wider audience than just executives. "The arrival of artificial intelligence" is an example, because AI hasn't arrived and it won't.

pixl97 10y ago
>because AI hasn't arrived and it won't. Ah, the AI effect in effect. AI is already here if you go by the original definitions set in the 50/60s. You just keep moving the goalposts as it gets better because "it cant' solve problem X yet" or "it's not quite as smart as a human" or "it hasn't exterminated all of mankind". This is a problem with humans when they don't want to share dominance with something else. Intelligence is simply information processing. AGI is inevitable. ASI is worrisome.
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  They mentioned that exact point on a recent podcast episode :-)
lordgrenville 10y ago
I wonder about this too. I lean towards the side that this is just storytelling in hindsight, but hedge by reading the blog posts every so often. The best way to test this would be to check his history for predictions (or statements that can be adapted into predictions) and see if they turned out. Of course, anyone who could make business predictions with certainty would be starting businesses, not consulting. Perhaps there's still some value in just being able to create taxonomies from past events, as long as they're consistent.
- xiaoma 10y ago
  An even better metric is someone who publicly makes investments. An excellent non-VC example of this is David Gardener of the The Motley Fool, who publicly announced his stock purchases and rationale before making them. He bought AOL in 1994, Amazon in 1997, Amgen and Starbucks in 1998 and eBay in 1999. In many cases the trades were unpopular for a year or two but you can be sure that his analysis of businesses has carried great weight ever since. It inspired me to take public positions for many years afterward. While my returns weren't quite as good as his, I learned a ton and absolutely crushed the market for 7 years until getting reckless with margin and learning a less pleasant lesson. I'm not sure if this blog makes many actual predictions but if so it would be very instructive to track them.