brucephillips

This advice is essentially "don't build on top of platforms, because platforms can become competitors".

It's good to point out this risk, but as with all maxims, it can be wrong depending on the details. Many big companies have been built on platforms, after all. In fact, as far as I can tell, one of his examples of "boring" companies that doesn't fall victim to this is Square, and Square is built on top of a platform. It's built on top of the credit card network. But VISA didn't kill them. Why not?

You have to look at the likelihood that the incumbent will enter your market. This depends on the threat/opportunity you pose. It also depends on the technical assets and abilities of the incumbent. It also depends on the opportunity cost the incumbent will incur. It also depends on the strain it will put on other lines of business. If the incumbent has to rewrite much of their business processes to compete, they'll be less likely to do so. You have to look at how open the platform is, and how likely the incumbent is to change it in order to kill you.

What alternative do you propose?

Can you name any consumer technology in history that wasn't ultimately available to the masses?

I can't innovate on furniture directly, but maybe on the design, manufacturing, and distribution processes around it. I have no idea how this industry is structured, but here are some ideas.

- Made to order furniture. Let users design their own, or at least mix and match high level componets at a finer detail than ikea.

- High end IKEA. Combine the flexibility of Ikea with high end designs and materials.

- High level office furnishing service. Companies provide a high level description of their furnishing problem, rather than choosing specific items. I'm sure these consultants already exist, but maybe it can be done in a more automated, scalable way.

- bid/ask interface for used furniture markets. This would enable sellers to passively sell items.

- used marketplace that uses ML to extract features from pics. I think this may already exist. Not sure.

How would we provide the essentials of life other than through basic income or a similar welfare program?

When was the last time a new language family was created?

This argument could just as well be made against life saving medicines like antibiotics. Death is a part of life. Let's not fight it.

This adds nothing to the discussion.

Why shouldn't he?

You're underestimating how expensive that goal is. Providing every adult with basic income so that they can pursue their dreams would bankrupt the country.

Great point. This is why I advocate for taking money early on, but only increasing burn when a profitable business model is found.

This is the best of both worlds.

What do you mean "worth pursuing"? Do you mean that you can't find an idea worth investigating further? Or do you mean that you can't find an idea that survives a month of concentrated market research?

The latter is reasonable. The former isn't. You should be able to come up with lots of ideas worth following up on.

Let's play a game. Someone give me a product category, and I'll list ideas that are at least worth more research.

There's a strong bias for founders to describe their founding story as a "Eureka!" moment. Don't fall for this. Most founders come up with ideas because they're looking for them.

Blue ocean does not equal unicorn. That's a mistake the author makes. Blue ocean, by definition, is just an open market. That market can be big or small.

I'm not sure what point of mine you're arguing. I agree that new markets exist.

What do you mean?

Agreed. I've had a doctor google my symptoms in front of me.

It's my own deductive theory. An opportunity is a profitable product, meaning demand is higher than cost. Most opportunities are new opportunities, due to market efficiency. So something must have occurred recently to increase demand or decrease cost.

For example?

The author doesn't describe the most reliable indicator of new opportunity, which is economic change. Change can come in the form of shifting demographics, new tech, or new product adoption. These are the events that increase demand or decrease cost for a new product opportunity. They should be where you direct your attention.

This is demonstrably false, since it can be said of the problems addressed by any new product, and new products succeed all the time.

David Foster Wallace was average looking, at best.

What does that have to do with anything? The claim is that arrow keys are more intuitive keybindings. If you're remapping keys, then the familiarity of keys is irrelevant.

That can be said of any product, not just ML.

Yes, you would. Ctrl/alt are within finger range. The arrow keys aren't.

If you're going to levy an accusation, please include some evidence.

No, this isn't true. It's something Peterson now claims, but it's not true.

Go to ~9:30 in this video: https://youtu.be/O-nvNAcvUPE

He claims that he wouldn't use preferred pronouns even if there was no law mandating it.

I'm not condemning this choice, just pointing out the falsehood.

There's no value in nitpicking. 99% of keyboards are standard qwerty.

> To date, most software imbued with machine learning reduces costs rather than increase revenues.

Source?

ML includes trading algorithms, recommendation systems, self driving cars, search, translation, asset pricing, etc., all of which are revenue generating.

Arrow keys are slower than letters, since you have to move your hand.