Facebook Investor Peter Thiel: Palantir Is The Next Facebook Or Google | Hacker News Reader

Facebook Investor Peter Thiel: Palantir Is The Next Facebook Or Google

blogs.forbes.com

53 pointsgarry52 comments

I interviewed with Palantir last fall. After failing to impress me (and honestly coming across as a bit too evil for my taste), I brought my job decision down to being between two other companies and told Palantir that I was appreciative of their time but I wasn't interested in any more interviews. A.G., a senior engineer there -- who I guess has some involvement with recruiting -- called me up to try and convince me to do an onsite interview. He told me that while I might have been the smartest person in groups at college and even at Facebook (where I have interned previously), and thus been on such a higher plane of thought that I had trouble explaining my ideas to the lesser peons, "that sort of thing doesn't happen here at Palantir". He also noted that if I needed more time to make a decision, I could always accept my Facebook offer and renege on it later if I decided to go to Palantir. Yeah... asking me to be dishonest while simultaneously insulting all of my friends and everyone I've ever worked with is not a good way to get me to join your company. After that and after the Palantir/Wikileaks thing recently, I'm quite glad with my decision to stay far, far away from Palantir, "next Facebook or Google" be damned.

What was it about their vibe that read "evil" during the interview process?

When I had dinner with a bunch of engineers, they talked about some examples of things that their code was used for. It assists our military, for example, in collating data and mining it so that they can more effectively kill people. They also assist the government with other tasks, such as (by I assume analyzing tax returns) helping the IRS track down tax evaders. Finally, they have a new product which helps hedge funds manage unfathomable amounts of money. None of these things are projects I particularly want to dedicate my time to.

Aside from this, other issues popped up during the interview process. Their interviewers were way too impressed with me (which makes me question the caliber of engineer the interviewer is typically in contact with) and were way too convinced that their company had "nowhere to go but up" and that their equity was a sure thing. No company is invincible.

That said, I know people who have interned there and people who work there full-time now. They are good people, so despite my terrible experiences with Palantir they aren't all bad.

Aside from anything else though, they're called Palantir.

I mean, IIRC, that didn't pan out too well for people in LOTR.

What?! First of all, I highly doubt this "PR flap" doesn't create significant problems for their bottom line. Secondly, why would anyone think an analytics platform will become the next "Google or Facebook". It's a B2B function, not an end-user/consumer site. It's not even really a Web 2.0 company, as noted in the article, the main competition is 20 years old. I seriously question Thiel's judgement, but will happily eat my hat if time proves otherwise on the value of it.

It's all PR. There may be solid potential for high revenues, but Google and Facebook have something that they don't, and that's a product that everyone on the planet can use and understand. That's what makes outlandish valuations.

I think he means it has the same potential market value. Palantir is exactly the kind of company that we need in the 21st century. One that can can answer questions about big datasets, be it climate data, market data, corporate data, social data, etc.

Palantir is exactly the kind of company that we need in the 21st century. One that can can answer questions about big datasets, be it climate data, market data, corporate data, social data, etc.

Unless they use Magic to answer those questions, there will be lots of other companies that can give you the same answers.

do end users of google pay for adwords?

i sometimes don't understand this b2b-b2c stuff when trying to find next google.

(next google in terms of 'huge success', but not in terms of 'search' or 'web 2.0 company')

1. Peter Thiel is an investor in Facebook, the platform where 500+ million people upload all their personal info.

2. Peter Thiel is major shareholder in Palantir, offering information analysis to governments.

Just saying...

For someone who espouses libertarian ideas it does seem strange to be investing in companies which erode privacy.

  Libertarianism = max$(Wealth, Freedom)

         dollar  x  your-freedom  = dollar
  max$ {
         dollar  x  my-freedom    = my-freedom

Thiel was just quoted as longing for the good old days when America took on tasks like the interstate highway system and the Manhattan project, so his libertarianism appears to be somewhat selective.

Privacy and liberty are closely related in many situations, but aren't prerequisites for each other (e.g. I'd argue that something like David Brin's Transparent Society provides plenty of liberty with 0 privacy).

I suspect Thiel subscribes to a similar approach (e.g. from his Wikipedia page, a quote: "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.").

3. Palantir was funded by In-Q-Tel, the CIA's venture arm.

I think I would have a hard time working in good conscience at a place like Palantir, no matter how interesting the underlying science might be.

Palantir presented during a DevHouse they hosted a year or so ago, some of their statistical trend analysis that implicated a certain cohort of mortgage lenders in/around Chicago. The results of their findings were pretty much proof of criminal activity and corruption in some very big names in the real estate market. The most fascinating thing was that they applied this theory to one specific geographic area (Chicago); applying it to other areas would almost certainly have revealed a larger trend.

I was impressed, and even applied there a number of months ago, mistakenly thinking they are on a mission to do good in the world. Was disappointed by the rejection email. Given this new information that they are likely using their findings as a sort of blackmail to sustain evil and corruption at the source, I'm actually not disappointed. The fact that they are in bed with entities like Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, et al is very disconcerting.

"Palantir signed a multi-year contract with the bank in December 2009 in the $5 million to $20 million range, and JPMorgan Chase Chief Information Officer Guy Chiarello gushes about the company, calling Palantir “the best bet I’ve made in quite a while.”"

Yeah, $5M is pennies in a hat for senior execs who risk decades of prison time when/if the realities of the sub-prime lending ever really get exposed.

Palantir is a company well worth knowing about [1] and one TC has written about like twice in 6 years, despite it being a billion dollar company actually doing stuff.

Now compare that to all the fawning attention given to Facebook meets Yahoo Answers that is called Quora....

EDIT: haha wow, it's now become politically incorrect to criticize TC's baby, Quora?

[1]: http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/25/palantir-the-next-billion-d...

http://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-get-voted-down-on-Hacker-...

Other analysts and companies in the space agree, saying that Palantir’s revenues were probably around $25 million to $50 million last year...the market for “situational awareness tools” like Palantir’s is in the tens of millions of dollars...
But Karp says that he sees a “clear path” to $1 billion in revenue within the next five years. How close is he to that? Palantir’s 2010 revenue was “significantly north of $80 million”, said a highly reputable source...

Still $80 million or so is a long way from $1 billion. A lot will depend on how Palantir expands beyond its cyber-security niche...Palantir has already been able to line up a number of other top banks and hedge funds...

[edited for specifics]

Depending on who is right here, analysts or "undisclosed source", it makes me think that this whole business of supplying tools to the government is not where they are going to make their fortune. A look at their web page seems to indicate they sell 2 different products, one aimed at the government and one aimed at finance. The government product may be close to saturating the market unless they start to penetrate law enforcement more (there are a lot of police). Their single deal with JPMorgan is worth something like 20% of their revenue (depending on how you figure it).

With 330 employees they have to make just south of $70mil/year. If the analysts are right, they're losing money. If "undisclosed source" is right, they're just making money. My guess is that the analyst figure doesn't include the JPMorgan deal. My bigger guess is that a lot depends on how quickly they can distance themselves from their sketchiness of the last 12 months.

Either way...

"Still $80 million or so is a long way from $1 billion."

I'd say $1billion is a long way to go from Facebook or Google money.

I don't write for a living, but this might be the worst constructed sentence I've ever read:

"But recently, Palantir has found itself in headlines for putting together a proposal, along with HBGary and Berico Technologies, to launch cyber-attacks and other “dirty tricks” against Wikileaks and its supporters, on behalf of Bank of America, and against website ThinkProgress on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce."

After reading that, I tuned out. All the investment banks are hyping all this shit to get some underwriting fees on IPOs. 2011 looks to be another big bonus yr for M&A and IPOs if they keep on successfully getting their HNW individuals to hype this shit only to tank it off to the common shareholders once it goes public.

The game is fixed!

Well, is Facebook the next Google, yet?

I think there are parallels between the art markets and the emerging start-up markets.

In both of these fields, the actual products created support financial markets largely supported by opinion.

Both involve gatekeepers who select artists (or start-up companies) as important. The decisions made by these gatekeepers help to influence each relevant market.

Both involve attaching value to an artist (or company).

I think the difference is, in the art world - the curation (or moderation) process has been developed over time to ensure that there aren't too many new (highly hyped) entrants to the art market at any one time.

Surely, without this kind of restraint, bubbles are likely to develop?

If you can't determine what Palantir is all about by looking at their home page, they will NEVER beat Google or FB. Right now, the first slide asks the nebulous question with no answer, "What powers your intelligence infrastructure?"

Marketing, people. Its not that hard...

Palantir is B2B; it's a different sales cycle. You're not likely to work with them because you saw the homepage--you'll probably see the homepage after getting referred to them by an executive you know, getting a cold-call, reading a whitepaper, etc.

If they're B2B they're certainly not the next FB/Google.

Microsoft is largely B2B - it sells software licenses to OEMs for the hardware, and licenses to large corporate customers for productivity software like Office and SQL Server and so forth. Most of Microsoft's sales aren't people buying Windows in stores.

Salesforce.com is another example of a B2B startup which grew explosively.

But Peter Thiel didn't say that Palantir was the next Microsoft, did he?

It appears Palantir is doing well for themselves (although, who knows, maybe not), but calling themselves the next Facebook or Google smacks of hubris.

To me, the culture is what makes FB/Google. And I don't mean the internal culture - I mean people having those companies be a part of actual culture. They've developed to the point where they're everyday entities; regular people identify with them just as you would your car company. I don't think it's so with MS.

That question makes a lot of sense to their target market. A CSO or CIO who sees this site will understand the question and realize that their current answer is quite probably "nothing" or "something not very good". The result:

"... Of course, Thiel is Palantir’s largest stakeholder, and his venture capital firm The Founders Fund has bankrolled much of the startup’s initial costs."

This counts as news?

"Of course..." means they're just trying to fill the gaps in the story for people who aren't already aware of it (I wasn't).

Ah you've misinterpreted my point. I'm not assuming that people know who Theil is, rather that Palantir's biggest shareholder waxing lyrical in some PR-blurb article - calling his investment 'the next facebook', no less - counts as news on HN.

What does Palantir do?

> But recently, Palantir has found itself in headlines for putting together a proposal, along with HBGary and Berico Technologies, to launch cyber-attacks and other “dirty tricks” against Wikileaks and its supporters, on behalf of Bank of America, and against website ThinkProgress on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Don't forget settling a lawsuit with one of their principal competitors (i2), conducted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO, yes the same law that Mob bosses are charged under, the judge in the case threw out all of their defenses not to be sued under RICO since what they did was so brazen) which would have resulted in triple damages -- they virtually had to settle or go out of business.

http://venturebeat.com/2011/02/16/palantirs-third-black-eye-...

The initial complaint reads like one of their sales/marketing demos.

Very sketchy company IMHO.

They sell data mining tools to the US government.

I once heard in an Alex Karp interview that they sold their products to other governments too(China and India IIRC). I found it quite odd, it would make sense to provide exclusive access to a particular government like the US or some other large country. This isn't a consumer product, it deals with a lot of sensitive data and i'm assuming a lot of governments would be wary of using the same product/company (especially one with 20 somethings at the helm).

edit: I'm not against 20-30 year olds running a company, but i'm assuming government officials would be.

Heh, the world isn't governed by presidential translators, but by 20-somethings pushing one set of data to one government, then slily changing it and pushing it to the other government.

Also, Palantir probably has a cadre of fat old white conservative reps to deal with gov't reps.

You probably meant "wary"... or maybe not.

oops...edited

Not after the Tolkien estate gets done suing them...

As someone who grew up loving Lord of the Rings, I definitely love the name they chose. I am curious though, was that all joke or is a lawsuit a possibility? I know the Tolkien estate is very careful regarding their copyrights.

I find it pretty humorous that the company's namesake is generally associated with corruption and deception through the false promise of great knowledge and/or power.

I didn't think of that, it's pretty funny.

I'm not sure whether or not it is a joke. The Tolkien estate is suing over the use of "Tolkien" (see http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/27/1940241/Tolkien-Estat... ), so I'm not sure how far they'd go.

A better headline would have been

"Palantir founder and lead investor: we're the next Facebook or Google"

Film at 11.

Been saying this for years! Go Palantir!

Does the world need another Facebook or Google? How bout a cure for the common cold or something useful?

He's not saying that palantir is going to be the next big social network or search engine. He is saying it is going to be the next tens of billions $ startup exit.

Go right ahead kid.

My comment was not really so as glib as all that. We see hundreds of billions of dollars worth of speculative investments in "technologies", recalling the heady days of the dot-com era and the now iconic pets.com. Cures for common viral diseases, while surely not as monumental as daily groupons or facebook status changes, would be a boon for the billions of people who suffer from their effects.

Look, a hundred billion dollars is a lot of money. Enough to secure progress on major scientific fronts. Enough to launch half a dozen Human Genome Projects. If groupon is worth $15 billion, and facebook is worth $70 billion, it's not so absurd to wonder if the way we are valuing technological and intellectual resources has gone off the reservation. Memory of the dot com bust seems to have completely faded from the valley. The valuations we place on forms of innovation, intellectual achievement, affect where we are going.

Yes, I would rather pursue the cure for the common cold, flus, and other viral diseases, even with a low probability of success. The odds of creating the next Facebook are similarly astronomically low, and even if I succeeded, it would be less meaningful than even advancing the solution of the former. I would credit myself if I merely convinced a few smart people that this was a worthier goal towards which to apply their energies and abilities.

Imagine a world where (more than a few) hackers thought and communicated about the structure and meaning of dna. Wrote programs which probed protein structures and revealed their dynamics and interactions. That seems far fetched now, but decades ago, computers were extravagantly expensive devices maintained by a relatively small priesthood. The ecosystem of software which has evolved since the democratization of computing brought about by the personal computer and Internet revolution represents billions of man hours of work by smart, dedicated (and even not so dedicated) people. My point is that hackers can and do contribute a great deal to solving very difficult, truly important problems, and that we shouldn't be so obsessed with trying to create the next twitter or twaddle, because twaddling is so ab$urdly overvalued at the moment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com