> Peter Thiel's claim that google is a search advertising monopoly masquerading as a (competitive, non-monopoly) technology company
That's not a very deep insight, it's been pretty obvious since they bought out DoubleClick in 2007.
That's not a very deep insight, it's been pretty obvious since they bought out DoubleClick in 2007.
If you want a POV on the most recent one involving Doubleclick, listen to the first part of this podcast with Brian Kelley of App Nexus - a competitor to Google ad tech.
Thiel is openly advocating monopolies, and says competition is for losers.
I think he's just calling GOOG out for their marketing, and noting their market strategy to deflect attention away from their monopoly.
I, for one, have never heard anyone publicly mention this besides Thiel. Have you?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093781/distribution-of-...
I wish more people understood this.
Ime he's a walking personification of "jack of all trades, master of none".
That's the perfect trait for a VC (broad knowledge is critical to identify market trends), but it has its flaws such as extreme simplification of complex topics.
That said, you can rightfully argue that this is why you are investing in egghead founders - so they can deal with solving those problems and logic gaps.
> If the Washington intellectual aims for authority and expertise, the Silicon Valley intellectual seeks novel or counter-intuitive insights. He claims to judge ideas on their utility; in practice I find he cares mostly for how interesting an idea first seems. He likes concepts that force him to puzzle and ponder. > This is fertile soil for the dabbler, the heretic, and the philosopher from first principles.
That said, if a 60 minute talk can provide even one useful insight that's useful, I'd say it's a win. And I think his "zero to one" talk had at least two or three.
Honestly, I concluded GOOG was an advertising company pretending to be a "tech" company some time ago, but if I say it I'm a "troll", if Thiel says it, well it might be true, right?
I'd assume at least a dozen things are more important than advertising inexpensive Chinese made socks to Americans. But I could be wrong.
If by highest you mean, "most lucrative" then yes, I agree.
Their technology products are free/low cost ways to get you to voluntarily opt in to their surveillance advertising model.
Doesn’t GCP bring in big bucks?
Not to mention gsuite. If your company don’t use Microsoft office they use gsuite.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093781/distribution-of-...
the much smaller black box is GCP. Much smaller. much much smaller.