5 ms·

I think a number of people here may be misinterpreting what Thiel means by "monopoly". Here is the likely backbone of that chapter[0]. I personally believe eac

by rattray 12y ago

I think a number of people here may be misinterpreting what Thiel means by "monopoly". Here is the likely backbone of that chapter[0]. I personally believe each company should do one thing, and do that one thing better than anyone else in the world possibly could. Companies should therefore be constantly perfecting that one thing to the degree that no competitor could possibly catch up. I may be wrong, but I hope that's the kind of monopoly Thiel is talking about. [0] http://blakemasters.com/post/21169325300/peter-thiels-cs183-startup-class-4-notes-essay http://blakemasters.com/post/21169325300/peter-thiels-cs183-...

rayiner 12y ago
I don't think that's really what that essay is about. Arguably, the point is the opposite of that. Read the part about Thiel interviewing for and not getting a Supreme Court clerkship. That process involves out-competing people: the pool of applicants looking to get into Stanford Law, the pool of classmates looking to get a circuit clerkship, the pool of circuit clerks looking to get a Supreme Court clerkship. Out of the 100,000 people who apply to law schools each year, 36 will get a Supreme Court clerkship 4-5 years later. Being in that 36 just requires doing the same thing everyone else is doing, but doing it better than the other 99,964 people. The moral of the story is that Thiel became incredibly successful by doing something nobody else was doing. If 100,000 people were all working for 4-5 years trying to create PayPal, maybe Thiel's version wouldn't have been the best. But that doesn't matter, because those people were off applying to law school. That's what Thiel seems to mean by "monopoly." Go find an area where you can make money, where there aren't 100,000 people trying to do the same thing you're doing.
hershel 12y ago
Do you know of many such companies started in the recent decade or two ? that achieved near monopoly state , without unfairly crushing competitors, without depending on network effects(which naturally favor one winner), and without unfairly using regulation ? or without so greatly benefiting from an initial advantage , to the point that even if they stopped seriously competing , no one could harm them ? Probably not, maybe a few. Why ? because the economy has became a network economy, where almost all industries benefit greatly from network effects. And network effects are unfair by their nature: they give such a huge advantage to the to the leader , even if he doesn't constantly improve. But why we see so much disruption you ask? well ,disruption also works on monopolies, by making it unprofitable for them to compete. And of course there are always new niches and people's preferences change so that hurt monopolies too.

by rattray 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

I don't think that's really what that essay is about. Arguably, the point is the opposite of that. Read the part about Thiel interviewing for and not getting a Supreme Court clerkship. That process involves out-competing people: the pool of applicants looking to get into Stanford Law, the pool of classmates looking to get a circuit clerkship, the pool of circuit clerks looking to get a Supreme Court clerkship. Out of the 100,000 people who apply to law schools each year, 36 will get a Supreme Court clerkship 4-5 years later. Being in that 36 just requires doing the same thing everyone else is doing, but doing it better than the other 99,964 people. The moral of the story is that Thiel became incredibly successful by doing something nobody else was doing. If 100,000 people were all working for 4-5 years trying to create PayPal, maybe Thiel's version wouldn't have been the best. But that doesn't matter, because those people were off applying to law school. That's what Thiel seems to mean by "monopoly." Go find an area where you can make money, where there aren't 100,000 people trying to do the same thing you're doing.

hershel 12y ago

Do you know of many such companies started in the recent decade or two ? that achieved near monopoly state , without unfairly crushing competitors, without depending on network effects(which naturally favor one winner), and without unfairly using regulation ? or without so greatly benefiting from an initial advantage , to the point that even if they stopped seriously competing , no one could harm them ? Probably not, maybe a few. Why ? because the economy has became a network economy, where almost all industries benefit greatly from network effects. And network effects are unfair by their nature: they give such a huge advantage to the to the leader , even if he doesn't constantly improve. But why we see so much disruption you ask? well ,disruption also works on monopolies, by making it unprofitable for them to compete. And of course there are always new niches and people's preferences change so that hurt monopolies too.