Offshore
Video
Startup Archive
Marc Andreessen: Revolutionary technologies were often viewed as “trivialities” or “jokes”
“If you read history, the great innovations of the past are now well understood as being very important. In almost every case, they were not widely understood as such at the time. In fact, I would assert that they were often actually viewed as trivialities or jokes.”
He gives three examples:
1. The telephone. “When Thomas Edison was first working on the telephone, the assumption of the use case motivating his early work was the idea that telegraph operators needed to be able to talk to each other. It was considered implausible that you would have a system that would let any ordinary person pick up the telephone and talk to another person - that was clearly impossible… Completely missing the larger opportunity.”
2. The Internet. “I have personal experience with this one. The Internet was laughed at. It was heaped with scorn from 1993 to 1997-98. In fact, those of you who were in the industry at the time will remember the New York Times had a reporter on staff named Peter Lewis… I’m convinced he was specifically hired by the editors to just write negative stories about the Internet. It was all he did, and it was always the Internet was never going to be a consumer medium. The Internet is not nearly as big as these people think. Nobody is ever going to trust the internet for e-commerce.”
3. The car. “The car was absolutely viewed as a triviality and a toy when it first emerged. In fact, J.P. Morgan himself refused to invest in Ford Motor Company with the response that it’s just a toy for rich people, which is in fact what it was at the time. If you had one of the first cars, you had to be a rich person. You had to have a driver. You often actually had to also have a stoker with your early cars to keep the engine going. And then you also had to travel with a full-time mechanic because the thing would break down every three miles.”
Marc concludes:
“The great innovations of the present, I believe, are virtually guaranteed to be viewed as trivial and to be viewed as jokes. I think history 50 to 100 years from now will enshroud them in legend. In our time, they won’t be recognized as such. Of course, in the future, when they become legends, our descendants will themselves have their own trivial innovations to laugh at.”
Video source: @MilkenInstitute (2013)
tweet
Marc Andreessen: Revolutionary technologies were often viewed as “trivialities” or “jokes”
“If you read history, the great innovations of the past are now well understood as being very important. In almost every case, they were not widely understood as such at the time. In fact, I would assert that they were often actually viewed as trivialities or jokes.”
He gives three examples:
1. The telephone. “When Thomas Edison was first working on the telephone, the assumption of the use case motivating his early work was the idea that telegraph operators needed to be able to talk to each other. It was considered implausible that you would have a system that would let any ordinary person pick up the telephone and talk to another person - that was clearly impossible… Completely missing the larger opportunity.”
2. The Internet. “I have personal experience with this one. The Internet was laughed at. It was heaped with scorn from 1993 to 1997-98. In fact, those of you who were in the industry at the time will remember the New York Times had a reporter on staff named Peter Lewis… I’m convinced he was specifically hired by the editors to just write negative stories about the Internet. It was all he did, and it was always the Internet was never going to be a consumer medium. The Internet is not nearly as big as these people think. Nobody is ever going to trust the internet for e-commerce.”
3. The car. “The car was absolutely viewed as a triviality and a toy when it first emerged. In fact, J.P. Morgan himself refused to invest in Ford Motor Company with the response that it’s just a toy for rich people, which is in fact what it was at the time. If you had one of the first cars, you had to be a rich person. You had to have a driver. You often actually had to also have a stoker with your early cars to keep the engine going. And then you also had to travel with a full-time mechanic because the thing would break down every three miles.”
Marc concludes:
“The great innovations of the present, I believe, are virtually guaranteed to be viewed as trivial and to be viewed as jokes. I think history 50 to 100 years from now will enshroud them in legend. In our time, they won’t be recognized as such. Of course, in the future, when they become legends, our descendants will themselves have their own trivial innovations to laugh at.”
Video source: @MilkenInstitute (2013)
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Stock Analysis Compilation
Platinium AM on Rheinmetall $RHM GR
Thesis: Rheinmetall is poised to benefit from increased European defense spending driven by political pressure and public support, as it is projected to hold 50% of the continent's ammunition capacity by 2026.
(Extract from their Q4 letter) https://t.co/B0gz9ZAzT0
tweet
Platinium AM on Rheinmetall $RHM GR
Thesis: Rheinmetall is poised to benefit from increased European defense spending driven by political pressure and public support, as it is projected to hold 50% of the continent's ammunition capacity by 2026.
(Extract from their Q4 letter) https://t.co/B0gz9ZAzT0
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®
$BF.B stock trades at its lowest multiple in >10 years🥃
2025-2027 EPS CAGR estimate of +7.5% 📊
Assuming $BF.B stock ends 2027 w $2.07E in EPS, here’s its return potential:
22x - 14.4% CAGR
21x - 14.1% CAGR
20x - 11.7% CAGR
19x - 9.2% CAGR
18x - 6.7% CAGR https://t.co/XFfYimGhIu
tweet
$BF.B stock trades at its lowest multiple in >10 years🥃
2025-2027 EPS CAGR estimate of +7.5% 📊
Assuming $BF.B stock ends 2027 w $2.07E in EPS, here’s its return potential:
22x - 14.4% CAGR
21x - 14.1% CAGR
20x - 11.7% CAGR
19x - 9.2% CAGR
18x - 6.7% CAGR https://t.co/XFfYimGhIu
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Quiver Quantitative
RT @QuiverCongress: JUST IN: Senator Richard Blumenthal has proposed legislation to require the President to publish reasons for pardons.
Do you support this?
Poll below. https://t.co/LKsjbAupPk
tweet
RT @QuiverCongress: JUST IN: Senator Richard Blumenthal has proposed legislation to require the President to publish reasons for pardons.
Do you support this?
Poll below. https://t.co/LKsjbAupPk
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Investing visuals
How the worlds most valuable company makes its money🍏🫰 https://t.co/5X0iiFob0U
tweet
How the worlds most valuable company makes its money🍏🫰 https://t.co/5X0iiFob0U
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Startup Archive
Ben Horowitz on why Al Davis's "nobody cares" advice to Bill Parcells might be "the best CEO advice ever":
"When things go wrong in your company, nobody cares. The press doesn’t care, your investors don’t care, your board doesn’t care, your employees don’t care, even your mama doesn’t care. Nobody cares.
And they are right not to care. A great reason for failing won’t preserve one dollar for your investors, won’t save one employee’s job, or get you one new customer. It especially won’t make you feel one bit better when you shut down your company and declare bankruptcy.
All the mental energy that you use to elaborate your misery would be far better used trying to find the one, seemingly impossible way out of your current mess. It’s best to spend zero time on what you could have done and all of your time on what you might do. Because in the end, nobody cares, just run your company."
tweet
Ben Horowitz on why Al Davis's "nobody cares" advice to Bill Parcells might be "the best CEO advice ever":
"When things go wrong in your company, nobody cares. The press doesn’t care, your investors don’t care, your board doesn’t care, your employees don’t care, even your mama doesn’t care. Nobody cares.
And they are right not to care. A great reason for failing won’t preserve one dollar for your investors, won’t save one employee’s job, or get you one new customer. It especially won’t make you feel one bit better when you shut down your company and declare bankruptcy.
All the mental energy that you use to elaborate your misery would be far better used trying to find the one, seemingly impossible way out of your current mess. It’s best to spend zero time on what you could have done and all of your time on what you might do. Because in the end, nobody cares, just run your company."
Nobody Cares by @bhorowitz https://t.co/Eu0yA9rlfJ tweet
Offshore
Photo
Stock Analysis Compilation
Platinium AM on Uber $UBER US
Thesis: Uber is well-positioned to thrive in the autonomous vehicle market despite current competition, leveraging its existing business expertise as a cooperative partner for Waymo and Tesla.
(Extract from their Q4 letter) https://t.co/Y0ZgprBMhI
tweet
Platinium AM on Uber $UBER US
Thesis: Uber is well-positioned to thrive in the autonomous vehicle market despite current competition, leveraging its existing business expertise as a cooperative partner for Waymo and Tesla.
(Extract from their Q4 letter) https://t.co/Y0ZgprBMhI
tweet
Offshore
Video
Startup Archive
Jony Ive: “You have to reject reason to innovate”
“If it hasn’t been done and it’s of value, there’s really good reasons it’s not been done. And so when you’re confronted with those reasons, you’ve got two choices. You can say, ‘Oh, that’s a very good reason, I’m sorry for bothering you.’ Or you can say, ‘I don’t believe that. I’m going to find out more.’”
Jony Ive continues:
“George Bernard Shaw talked bout how you have to reject reason to innovate. You have to say, ‘We understand. This is all very reasonable. But I’m going to ignore you completely.’ And if you're a fairly sensitive person, ignoring very smart people is really difficult… [But] that decision to ignore expert option happens every single time we do something that’s new.”
tweet
Jony Ive: “You have to reject reason to innovate”
“If it hasn’t been done and it’s of value, there’s really good reasons it’s not been done. And so when you’re confronted with those reasons, you’ve got two choices. You can say, ‘Oh, that’s a very good reason, I’m sorry for bothering you.’ Or you can say, ‘I don’t believe that. I’m going to find out more.’”
Jony Ive continues:
“George Bernard Shaw talked bout how you have to reject reason to innovate. You have to say, ‘We understand. This is all very reasonable. But I’m going to ignore you completely.’ And if you're a fairly sensitive person, ignoring very smart people is really difficult… [But] that decision to ignore expert option happens every single time we do something that’s new.”
tweet