What is Reddit's opinion of
Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
24 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
> Decline in SolarCity installations
> TSLA is abandoning solar energy!
Solar is one of the most essential components of their renewable plan (solar + storage = renewable grid) and they aren't going to abandon that because SolarCity's contracts came to a halt, unsurprisingly after TSLA tightened every facet of their spending belt due to this horse-fuckery quarterly analysis.
SolarCity was a stop-gap to penetrate the market with solar before a viable mass-scale solar option came to play (the roof, which is on the backburner while TSLA is scrutinized every Q for automotive deliveries).
lol, come on man. If you can, read a VERY BASIC BOOK on tech investing, and reevaluate how you're perceiving this entire market sector. Try thinking 5Y, 10Y ahead, and not 1 or 2 Quarters ahead.
If you think TSLA's end game is to prove the electric vehicle as a concept then let the international market take from that, you're in the wrong frame of mind and it's no surprise TSLA valuation or longevity doesn't show. Doing so would be like getting lost in an Amazon valuation as a bookstore years ago, claiming they just need to grow into Barnes & Noble's valuation.
Every time this is brought up, I repeat my suggestion for the same book to get someone started on this concept:
https://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296
You can disagree with the book, but if someone read this book in 2012 and went to the markets, they would've been balls deep in FANG before it even became an acronym. The book doesn't say "Buy FANG" ...but covers socioeconomic and modern-market theories that might offer perspective on how to truly look at companies like T/FANG, and what sets them apart from things like GPRO and Yahoo and why their slow starts usually have unexpected big yields.
I repeat myself: If TSLA was an automotive company ("product") with no moat or visible escape velocity, I wouldn't be as overweight on 'em. Fortunately, every member of the PayPal mafia well-understands the difference between a product and a platform, so I trust Elong to take us there despite quarterly noise.
https://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296
This is my long answer but holy fuck does it do an amazing job at explaining why that shit doesn't matter in the long run. And not just about Tesla, but Thiel explains it so damn clearly that if you read this in 2012 someone would claim you had a Crystal Ball on gainz.
The fluff / development / QC issues matter quarterly, but long-term, that's not what investors are focusing on. Their batteries are going to power the world, and I've placed my very...very...large bets on that accordingly.
Anyone who ever wants to invest in tech MUST read Zero to One. You don't need to necessarily agree with it, but it triggers a new perspective on how to analyze modern tech markets.
If it has anything to do with a social media marketing agency, stay away.
Other than that, Zero to One by Peter Theil is my suggestion, having done multiple successful startups and known people who also have.
https://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296
Valid points. However, Amazon didn't invent e-commerce, AAPL didn't invent the iPod or cell phone, Google didn't invent search, FB didn't invent social networking, Netflix didn't invent streaming, and Microsoft didn't invent the operating system. These companies have a lot in common in regards to building a platform (vs product) & executing flawlessly.
There are many factors to consider when investing in tech and which ones are exponential vs. incremental.
I will always take a chance to plug Zero to One (to the point where it annoys many wsb'ers) for those who want to dabble in the new-era of tech investing. One of the hardest pills to swallow for many: Tech investors are willing to pay for entire future profit potential today...not a standard multiplier or anything of the sorts.
Also the first outside investor in Facebook, and the author of arguably the best startup book ever written - Zero to One. https://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1477950947&sr=8-1&keywords=peter+thiel
Well innovation drives the world forward doesn't it?
Here in San Jose, I feel that we're not making progress in reducing stray cat populations with our TNR (trap neuter release) programs, it's the same story every year. Shelters get flooded with cats, not enough takers.
I'm reading this book called 0 to 1 where the author talks about something similar. According to him, going from:
• 0 to 1 - Innovating, creating something novel.
• 1 to n - Globalizing. Taking an innovation and propagating it thru the world. E.g. if a cure for ebola is found and given to every country in the world eradicating the disease.
He believes that we've had few 0 to 1 moments since 1975 (outside of technology), and a lot of 1 to n ones.
Go for your new shelter idea if you can. And keep me posted.
TL;DR Amazon is definetly a monopoly, but what matters legally is if this hurts consumers. This is harder to prove, especially because our anti-trust laws come from the 1980s.
Your question depends a lot about what we think a "monopoly" actually means. There is a lot of confusion out there because Economists and lawyers come at this from pretty different angles. And then there's another layer of confusion because what monopolies looked like have change a lot over the years.
I'd recommend checking out the work by Diane Coyle on digital monopolies. This interview and article are a really good introduction that cover most of the important concepts.
That said, let me try and give a shot answering your question:
Law versus Economics
In Economics, monopoly power means "the extent to which a firm can influence and even ‘set’ the market price (or quantity of supply) in a market. This is important so Economists can model things correctly. I think it's pretty clear that Amazon fulfils that criteria -- but the problem is that almost every other company also fits that definition. There is no such thing as "perfect competition", so holding things up against that standard is kind of useless for policymakers.
Instead, most people though don't really care about definitions in economic models, they care about real life. We don't really care about if a company is a monopoly, we care about if by being a monopoly it hurts us. This is where Bork's "Antitrust Paradox" comes in. It set out how the US Supreme Court approaches monopolies today. Basically, Bork says that the government should only intervene if it can show that there is direct harm to consumers (as opposed to anyone else). Planet Money did an episode explaining this.
So lets now look at that prescription services example you mentioned. Does Amazon entering this market hurt consumers? Amazon would say no. By entering the prescription services it's acting as a new competitor, making things potentially cheaper and definitely more convenient for consumers. It might be a monopoly from an Economics perspective (it definitely has market power) but it's a "good" monopoly. If you want to break Amazon up, it's on you to show that people have been harmed.
Old versus digital monopolies
This is the big problem that regulators have atm with big-tech atm. Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. all provide "free" services that are super convenient for consumers. Given US laws it is hence really hard to legally break these new monopolies up. That is one of the reasons why most anti-trust cases seem to come from the EU instead.
The interesting thing you mention is that Amazon is now active in so many markets (check out this great visualisation). This is quite common of big-tech too. But again, this has very little to do with our old definitions. In economics, what matters is how much power you have in a single market, not how many you are in (although by being in many might give you more power in others). And from a legal perspective, as long as Amazon doesn't do any obvious "evil" collusion, it is really hard to prove how this hurts consumers. They would argue that they are helping consumers by creating an easy "one-stop-shop" that's free to use.
One other thing I think is interesting here is Peter Thiel's take on how digital monopolies can depend a lot on your perspective. For example, take Google (figures from 2014):
>Google owns about 67% of the global search market
>
>Google owns less than 3% of the global advertising market
>
>Google owns less than 0.24% of the global consumer tech market
When Google face lawsuits they will mention the bottom figure, presenting themselves as a small (and harmless) fish in a big pond. When Google is talking to investors they will mention the top figure, presenting themselves as a big (and profitable) fish. Pretty much every company does this.
Overall, I think it's pretty clear that the US has a real problem with its current anti-trust laws (something that a lot of smart people are aware of). They were designed a long time ago, back when big monopolies still looked like Standard Oil and when people focused on price gauging. Today's tech giants are very different. Their products are "free" and convenient, and their markets are difficult to define. Coming up with an "objective" standard to regulate them is thus really tricky and no one really has been able to come up with an answer.
Edit: typos
1- I actually agree with this comment, central planning seems from its implementation to function when going from 0 to 1. Which is an entirely different field than from 1 to 2. It might be because the Soviet planning model did not have a way to quantify and value materially the needs and wants of its people as opposed to the needs of the state. Where National defence and prestige played first place but a toilet paper factory was not built until 1969, and took a lot longer for anyone to actually be able to buy some. Not that capitalism does it great, after all your needs and wants are quantified by the capital you can put behind them. But at least the system is there. I read in a previous comment of yours that had the people wanted and able to voice their concerns this wouldn’t happen. However while they might somehow voice their wants and needs to the state, the state still does not have a materially quantified measurement of the need or want of the population for any one product. Just maybe votes and letters.
2- online sources say the Soviet economy was around 20% dependant on oil, which makes some sense but according to this book where polisci prof Bueno de Mesquita says that accounting for all non-oil industry and business conducted in the union that was not directly oil, but dependent on the oil sector, was more around 60% of the economy. That’s why I thought that it had been the oil price collapse of 1986 that had caused the final nail of the Soviet economy. However I did not know as you point out the more political side of trade within the USSR.
3- It’s true that consumer good products in the USSR were not of comparative quality to German, Japanese, or Korean. However I think a big part of the problem may also be the geography problem, which I got from this book. As the Soviet Union was essentially blocked from trading with the rest of the world, as the warm water ports it had in Crimea were unusable to trade with the outside world, as the US simply blocked the Turkish Strait, and effectively locked in Russia to the Black Sea. After that are the ports in the Baltics, which could’ve been blocked in the Skagerrak strait. After that it’s Vladivostok but even if Japan could not block that port, it’s inefficient and unrealistic to remain competitive if you have to finance shipping your consumer goods across Siberia and still have those products be competitive in cost. Therefore, what I mean in conclusion is that the USSR due to matters of national security could not make itself dependent on sea routes, by that I mean like most countries today import critical components of their economy like oil to function. The USSR could not do this because the US controls all sea trade routes. I believe this conclusion can be proven by the fact the Soviets had the 2nd largest marine fleet yet that fleet was far behind in technology and deeply neglected.
4- Excellent comment on the problems of over leveraging which is the cause for most major economic crisis. It has happened repeatedly that each time we think we have overcome this problem but it’s never been true, as it has been brilliantly put in this book. Another problem with taking out debt on the state is the incentives on that state. Leadership can very easily funnel that money to themselves and oftentimes the benefit to them is risk free, while the burden lies entirely with the taxpayer, like it happened in the Mexican state of Coahuila in 2010. Managing debt is usually the role of the financial sector, something the USSR never had. The financial sector is something a socialist state will have to find some sort of version for (imo) because it measures and controls risk. I know it might seem nonsense given the financial crisis that have happened. But there isn’t yet any viable alternative that catalogues, and calculates risks like a finance sector does. From bond ratings, interest on loans, credit scores, valuations, etc, are all forms of risk measurement that I have not seen a mirror for in socialist countries. A benefit of having such a sector I think the Chinese have found, is that even if you cannot outright afford a project, I’d the risk is worthwhile, a finance sector provides the capital needed for it.
I think this is prob enough text for now.
Kind of an uber-bro bio hacking approach but whenever I'm in a slump, working up to doing cold showers for progressively longer time periods is super energizing and also is an easy way to achieve a sense of accomplishment.
The Wim Hof app has a fun little track that helps you build up over 20 days w/ stickers etc.
Outside of that what has motivated me is basically building up a kind of personal religion/mythology to motivate you. Some grand world-altering goal, that you'd only achieve via hard work. I personally created an art-book around this goal, and I revisit it to keep me focused. Ending nihilism requires belief in a better future.
And of course, take the Thiel Pill, here's a PDF of the full book, read chapter 6 "You are not a lottery ticket" and tell me you're not a laser-eyed libertarian.
Start with zero to one, then repeat
https://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296
Anyone else read Zero to One? I'm about 1/5 through it and it's really good.
What say you retards?
Will the stock fall back to single digits?
Will glorious leader Peter Thiel and Mithril Capital Zero to One this muhfugga and buy the shares direct and off market?
Will Superman overcome the Kryptonite!?
Here's a few book recommendations for engineers:
Zero to One: Notes on StartupsAmazon Link
Exactly: How precision engineers created the modern worldAmazon Link
10+1 Steps to Problem Solving: An Engineer's GuideAmazon Link
Leonardo's Notebooks: Writing and Art of the Great MasterAmazon Link
Hope this helps
nvm, found it, it's a book by Peter Thiel, https://www.amazon.ca/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296, I'll have to add it to my reading list.
Alguns links interessantes para te guiar
Startup Visa : Pode ser interessante para ti
​
Leitura adicional para alargar horizontes sobre o mundo startup
Zero to One
​
Ser empreendedor (sem padrinhos e crachá) é duro, e cheio de embustes
Começa simples, com pouco investimento, resolve um real problema que as pessoas tenham, foge competição, e o dinheiro seguirá.
Boa sorte.
I update this post with all of the books I have read with a rating but there is a pretty broad selection in there. The first two were based more on the startup/tech scene so not sure if they would fit your everyday decisions criteria but I think both books are excellent. E-Myth is more around getting the right person for the right job to streamline your business so it maybe helpful too.
The first book that I couldn't put down until I completed it. Picked a fair few things up from it as well as a bunch of things I hope to move forward with in the future with startups.
Another book I loved, just introduced me to a bunch of new concepts with a fair few I hope to use in the future.
Although I had a decent understanding of how to allocate duties to people depending on their job role this helped me better understand it as well as the importance of doing it.
Innovation is what leads our economy to growth.
>they must provide the good or service at the lowest possible cost
With or without regulation, this requires assumptions that aren't realistic like:
- All firms must sell identical products. (They don't)
- All companies can't control market price of their goods. (Business strategy encourages otherwise)
- Companies have small market share. (Companies advertise, buy each other out, push each other out the market, etc.)
- All buyers full info about all product/pricing offerings out there. (We have AOL subscribers paying broadband rates for dial-up in 2017)
In this libertarian world, imagine if a company owned the lands & home you were born and raised. How is this different than from the era of serfs, lords & aristocracy?
Also, if you get a chance, I'd highly recommend taking a few minutes to read through Zero To One by Peter Thiel.
Zero to One is my favorite.
ITT: much surprise that benjamin graham didn't teach you how to invest in platforms, not quarters.
https://www.amazon.ca/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296
Start with the above, then you'd have easily figured out why it'd be wise to invest in GOOG, AMZN, TSLA & NFLX, FB all in their relative-birth. The applied knowledge meant most tech investors were investing in TSLA not for the cars (products = tools to create a platform), but for the ultimate end-game of energy (the platform). Any successful tech person knows worldwide incumbents would destroy his attempt at a significant share of EV vehicles (after they become commonplace). The trick is to position yourself where even the incumbents are eventually all coming to you. AAPL failed to do this as they were a closed system. GOOGL succeeded w/ Android.
People are betting on the goal of getting to that energy conglomerate status.
Zero to One might also open new perspectives to reevaluate what is right/wrong to look at when making long-tech plays.
Just different thought processes. Now drink the goddamn kool-aid and take your medicine like daddy Musk told us.
edit: I feel like it's worth saying there is an art to disconnecting "quarterly results" with "derailing or impedance to ultimate goal". If your ultimate goal is "make this quarter look good", typically the bigger picture is less-focused on.
Fuck the quarter, fuck investor chirp, focus on the endgame. AMZN did it. TSLAs doing it. GOOGL said it in their IPO letter, which they insisted to be included despite objections from SEC.
Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future
http://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296
If you want to build a better future, you must believe in secrets.
The great secret of our time is that there are still uncharted frontiers to explore and new inventions to create. In Zero to One, legendary entrepreneur and investor Peter Thiel shows how we can find singular ways to create those new things.
Thiel begins with the contrarian premise that we live in an age of technological stagnation, even if we're too distracted by shiny mobile devices to notice. Information technology has improved rapidly, but there is no reason why progress should be limited to computers or Silicon Valley. Progress can be achieved in any industry or area of business. It comes from the most important skill that every leader must master: learning to think for yourself.
Doing what someone else already knows how to do takes the world from 1 to n, adding more of something familiar. But when you do something new, you go from 0 to 1. The next Bill Gates will not build an operating system. The next Larry Page or Sergey Brin won't make a search engine. Tomorrow's champions will not win by competing ruthlessly in today's marketplace. They will escape competition altogether, because their businesses will be unique.
Zero to One presents at once an optimistic view of the future of progress in America and a new way of thinking about innovation: it starts by learning to ask the questions that lead you to find value in unexpected places.
Popular alternatives to Zero to One: Notes on Start...
The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking
The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and What to Do About It
