Hi Mike, I'm back in the comments section -- really enjoying your writing and the authenticity that comes through.
You talk about inflection points as "a new technology, a new regulation, a new idea". I'm curious what great examples there are of things that aren't obviously a new technology, like the latter two. The company I always think of in this context is Airbnb, which didn't necessarily have a technological why now.
It seems the inflection there was more a societal inflection, but actually I personally think it was a latent, concealed truth hiding in broad daylight that said something along the lines of "most people are good, just like yourself, and won't thrash your home".
Was the lack of a strong why now why you passed on Airbnb? (I believe I've heard you say this)
Personally (and as I commented in your inaugural post!) those entrepreneurs are that look at the world and sees truths that already exist but aren't expressed are by far the most interesting.
Hey Pelle - Thanks for the kind words. Is there a good way for me to reach you by email? I have a few thoughts about airbnb that might be hard to fully summarize here since I haven't yet gotten to the posts yet that deep dive on inflections and insights :)
I (belatedly) came across this blog post from USV which interestingly spell out "societal pressures" as an investment thesis -- I'd still love to hear your thoughts if that was part of how you thought (or didn't think) about Airbnb when you looked at it. All the best! P
Hey Mike, it’s been a while. Have you considered contrasting some of this with your older Thunder Lizard content … might be an interesting perspective given the time span between the two articles is what, nearly 20 years or so?
Thanks for this, Mike. Must insights always depend on or be catalyzed by tech innovations or breakthroughs, like GPS in the iPhone 4? Or can the inflection point be more social, political, or environmental, yet still harnessing the power of legacy technologies?
This is one of the most insightful essay I read since your building breakthrough ebook. Keep it coming it is really meta-level valuable insight for us founders.
Does an insight need to be 'radical' to be valid or worth pursuing? Does the 'nonobvious truth about how one or more inflections can be harnessed' necessarily need to "radically change human capacities and behaviors? Can an enhancement to value creating greater impact be sufficient?
A good question: Here is how I think about it from a first principles point of view.
Companies create value through persistent compounding of their key advantages. In fact, if you look at folks like Warren Buffett, they have gotten very rich by betting that some businesses will compound more persistently for more time and with more intensity than most believe. In other words, he makes bets that people are underestimating the degree to which the future will be a persistent extension of the present.
Startups aren't companies. They are temporary organizations trying to become companies someday. And they face an important choice: Do I become a company by operating within the existing rules and add value according to those rules where others have missed the opportunity? (I call this forecasting because the founder projects forward from the present) Or...do I focus on pursuing opportunities that are radical enough to deny the very premise of the rules (which is what I mean by radical; an approach which I also call backcasting because the founder is working backwards from radically different futures which are assumed to not extend from the path of the present and therefore will operate according to different rules.)
So to me, the key question is how does the founder want to define success? Build what's missing in the present? Or move the world to radically different futures, using inflections and insights as their sources of power to do so?
Hi Mike, I'm back in the comments section -- really enjoying your writing and the authenticity that comes through.
You talk about inflection points as "a new technology, a new regulation, a new idea". I'm curious what great examples there are of things that aren't obviously a new technology, like the latter two. The company I always think of in this context is Airbnb, which didn't necessarily have a technological why now.
It seems the inflection there was more a societal inflection, but actually I personally think it was a latent, concealed truth hiding in broad daylight that said something along the lines of "most people are good, just like yourself, and won't thrash your home".
Was the lack of a strong why now why you passed on Airbnb? (I believe I've heard you say this)
Personally (and as I commented in your inaugural post!) those entrepreneurs are that look at the world and sees truths that already exist but aren't expressed are by far the most interesting.
Hey Pelle - Thanks for the kind words. Is there a good way for me to reach you by email? I have a few thoughts about airbnb that might be hard to fully summarize here since I haven't yet gotten to the posts yet that deep dive on inflections and insights :)
I (belatedly) came across this blog post from USV which interestingly spell out "societal pressures" as an investment thesis -- I'd still love to hear your thoughts if that was part of how you thought (or didn't think) about Airbnb when you looked at it. All the best! P
https://www.usv.com/writing/2024/01/investing-at-the-edge-of-large-markets-under-transformative-pressure/
Really happy you are putting out content again! Mike, I would love to hear your thoughts on Airbnb as well if possible aharon.shapiro@hey.com
Coming soon(ish!) :)
Of course — I would be most curious to hear! pelle@rialto.app
I’m very curious to get that airbnb-thoughts email if that’s possible :)
Zaidesanton@gmail.com
Great post Mike, subscribed.
Hey Mike, it’s been a while. Have you considered contrasting some of this with your older Thunder Lizard content … might be an interesting perspective given the time span between the two articles is what, nearly 20 years or so?
Thanks Mike, good post! Glad to see you writing and sharing what you've learned.
Thanks for this, Mike. Must insights always depend on or be catalyzed by tech innovations or breakthroughs, like GPS in the iPhone 4? Or can the inflection point be more social, political, or environmental, yet still harnessing the power of legacy technologies?
This is one of the most insightful essay I read since your building breakthrough ebook. Keep it coming it is really meta-level valuable insight for us founders.
Thanks Bob! I'm on it! Actually, releasing a "real" book in July. :)
Wow awesome! Looking forward to it;)
Does an insight need to be 'radical' to be valid or worth pursuing? Does the 'nonobvious truth about how one or more inflections can be harnessed' necessarily need to "radically change human capacities and behaviors? Can an enhancement to value creating greater impact be sufficient?
A good question: Here is how I think about it from a first principles point of view.
Companies create value through persistent compounding of their key advantages. In fact, if you look at folks like Warren Buffett, they have gotten very rich by betting that some businesses will compound more persistently for more time and with more intensity than most believe. In other words, he makes bets that people are underestimating the degree to which the future will be a persistent extension of the present.
Startups aren't companies. They are temporary organizations trying to become companies someday. And they face an important choice: Do I become a company by operating within the existing rules and add value according to those rules where others have missed the opportunity? (I call this forecasting because the founder projects forward from the present) Or...do I focus on pursuing opportunities that are radical enough to deny the very premise of the rules (which is what I mean by radical; an approach which I also call backcasting because the founder is working backwards from radically different futures which are assumed to not extend from the path of the present and therefore will operate according to different rules.)
So to me, the key question is how does the founder want to define success? Build what's missing in the present? Or move the world to radically different futures, using inflections and insights as their sources of power to do so?