Tag: Ben Thompson

• Scarcity in a world of AI

  As someone who collects NFT art, I now see a lot of AI-generated images. Usually I can tell when an image was generated by a computer, but sometimes it’s hard to tell and I’m sure eventually I won’t be able to tell. But if I’m being honest, today I find that I have a bias toward art that was created without any AI prompts. Maybe that changes in the future, or maybe it doesn’t.

  Either way, the marginal cost of producing new content, such as images and videos, has now gone down to zero as a result of AI tools. (Here are some of my crappy creations.) That means that, if you aren’t already, you’re soon going to be faced with a deluge of things created in this way. This will almost certainly become the dominant form of content that we consume.

  I don’t think that we need to be scared by this future, but I do agree with Ben Thompson and others that it’s going to make authenticity and human-content more valuable. In other words, we’re probably going to need to know what is digitally scarce and what is just another thing generated by AI. Thankfully we have a suitable technology for this: it’s called a blockchain.

  2023.10.19

• Will Apple Vision make our cities more lonely?

  Okay, so I haven’t tried it yet. But Apple Vision looks pretty awesome and the people who have tried it seem to be very impressed by it. The best article that I have read, so far, is this one here by Ben Thompson (of Stratechery). He gets into some of the tech details and explains why Apple is probably the only company in the world that could have created a device like this.

  For those of you who are interested, Apple Vision is still technically a VR device, even though it is being marketed as an augmented reality (AR) device that allows you to stay engaged with the world around you. This last part is true, but it is all done digitally through 12 cameras that capture the world around you and then display it back to you.

  So experientially, yes, it is an AR device; however, the tech behind it is actually just exceptional VR.

  But this is not the point of today’s post. The point I would like to make is one that Ben raises at the end of his article. After praising Apple Vision’s achievements, he goes on to argue that the arc of technology is one that is leading toward “ever more personal experiences.” In other words, it is increasingly about individual, rather than group, use cases.

  And this is one of the first things that I thought of when I watched the Vision Pro keynote. “Wow, this looks like a really cool way to watch and experience a movie. But how do I do that with my partner? I guess we both now need Vision Pros. And what about families with a bunch of kids? That is a lot of Vision Pros.”

  But maybe this doesn’t matter. Ben’s point is that it’s probably not an accident that this technology arc is happening at the same time as a larger societal shift away from family formation and toward more feelings of loneliness. Indeed, the number of single-person households has been steadily increasing in the US since the 1960s. The current figure sits at more than 1 in 4 households.

  So there is an obviously dystopian narrative that we could all tell ourselves here. It is one where everyone works from home, plugs into virtual workplaces, and then flips over to other, more exciting, virtual worlds when it’s time to unwind from the stresses of the former. And if you think about it, this isn’t that much of a stretch compared to what many of us do today.

  Whatever the case, in my mind, none of this is any reason to become bearish on cities. Humans will still be humans. And none of this tech is going to replace the feeling of enjoying a perfect pesto gnocchi in an impossibly narrow laneway in Milan, or drinking a caipirinha on the beaches of Rio de Janeiro while being surrounded by shockingly beautiful people.

  Or at least let’s hope so.

  2023.06.06

• How disruptive is AI really going to be?

  AI is going to be very disruptive, right? At this point, I think it is pretty clear to most that the answer is yes, almost regardless of what industry you’re in. But is it going to be really disruptive? Like disruptive in the Clayton Christensen sense of the word. (Christensen is known for coining the term “disruptive innovation“, which he contrasted against “sustaining innovation.”)

  This is a good question, and I like how Ben Thompson thought about it in his newsletter this morning:

  I tend to believe that disruptive innovations are actually quite rare, but when they come, they are basically impossible for the incumbent company to respond to: their business models, shareholders, and most important customers make it impossible for management to respond. If that is true, though, then an incumbent responding is in fact evidence that an innovation is actually not disruptive, but sustaining.

  The point he is making is that given that the big tech companies (and of course everyone else) are all now responding to AI by incorporating it into their businesses, it, by definition, must not be a disruptive innovation. It’s a sustaining one. This doesn’t mean that AI won’t have significant impacts on our economy; it just means that maybe it won’t put a company like Alphabet out of business.

  I thought this was an interesting way of looking at things because it is a reminder that “disruptive innovations” often start out at the bottom of the market. They start in a way that can feel innocuous to incumbents; that is, until they move upmarket. But this is not at all how AI feels. As soon as you play around with ChatGPT you immediately think to yourself, “holy shit, this thing can do my job.”

  That is obviously something very meaningful. But is it going to shake up the big tech world order? I don’t know, if you follow Christensen’s definition, crypto sounds like the more disruptive innovation.

  2023.05.15

• TikTok wants to open warehouses

  Last week, Axios revealed that TikTok is looking to hire a bunch of people that can help the company build out fulfillment warehouses and an entire e-commerce supply chain system for its users. All of this was discovered through various job listings that the company has posted to LinkedIn.

  Broadly speaking, this is I think interesting for two reasons. Firstly, it is an atypical approach compared to other social networks. Instagram allows people to sell stuff via its platform, but it’s done through an asset-light approach. What TikTok is doing is more Amazon meets social. (Though this is not my area of expertise and I’m going to need someone like Ben Thompson to do a deep dive into TikTok’s business model.)

  Secondly, I like to think about the physical spaces that service our online activities and what any changes might mean for our cities. Today if you order something from UberEats, it may come to you from a ghost kitchen that is servicing multiple restaurant brands and various food apps, and has no front-of-house operations. Tomorrow if you order something you see on TikTok, it may come to you from one of their warehouses.

  This is not any different than how Amazon works today, except for the fact that TikTok has this incredibly powerful and sticky social layer. If you take this to an extreme, it’s almost as if our physical spaces are slowly becoming back-of-house providers to front-of-house spaces that only exist somewhere online. Who needs Zuck’s metaverse, we may already be living in one.

  2022.10.16

• Amazon’s supply chain moat is turning out to be useful

  Today, Amazon ships approximately 72% of its own packages. This is up from about 47% in 2019. Ben Thompson of Stratechery recently published an excellent article talking about why this is important and how the company’s investments in logistics are, yet again, paying dividends.

  The foundation of Amazon’s “moat”, Ben argues, is aggregating customer demand. When most people buy something on Amazon from a third party merchant, they think and feel as if they’re buying directly from Amazon. Some people probably don’t even appreciate the difference and in most cases it probably doesn’t matter. It comes in a box with Amazon’s logo on it and that’s that.

  But it’s an important distinction because if you’re a third party merchant, Amazon pretty much “owns” your customers. They are the ones aggregating demand. They have the brand equity and loyalty. And if you left the platform, your customers would be unlikely to follow you.

  This is kind of the opposite of how Shopify’s ecommerce platform works. When you operate a Shopify store you are using their platform, but you are bringing your own brand, web domain, and other assets to it, such that you can now establish a more direct relationship with your customers. This doesn’t mean that Shopify doesn’t have a moat, it’s just something different.

  All things being equal, most businesses would rather “own” their customers than not. The problem right now is that shipping and supply chains are no joke, and so there are real advantages to being on Amazon and having them handle your fulfillment. It could mean the difference between getting your products out for Christmas, or not.

  So all things are not equal.

  2021.12.12

• Opendoor.com is so risky that it may just work

  

  I have been writing about the startup Opendoor.com for over 2 years now. And I continue to believe that they are the most promising disruptor in the residential real estate space. 

  Here is the first post that I wrote back in July 2014 after they raised their first round of funding. Here is the second post that I wrote after they launched in Phoenix. And here is another post that I wrote 6 months ago where I argued, once again, that they are doing something worth paying attention to. (This last post explains how the platform works.)

  Well, about a week ago it was announced that they have raised another round of funding: a $210 million Series D. In all likelihood, the company’s valuation is now over $1 billion. Here’s the Techcrunch announcement where the message was: huge ass number; risky business model.

  In response to this, Ben Thompson wrote a terrific and widely shared blog post called, Opendoor: A Startup Worth Emulating. I love his post because he says what I have firmly believed and argued for many years: Zillow and Redfin are not disruptive real estate startups.

  This is what he says about Zillow:

  “And yet, the most successful real estate startup, Zillow (which acquired its largest competitor Trulia a couple of years ago), is little more than a glorified marketing tool: the company makes most of its revenue by getting real estate agents — the ones collecting 6% of fees, split between the buying and selling agents — to pay to advertise their houses on the site. Certainly a free tool that makes it easier to find houses in a more intuitive way is valuable — Zillow has acquired the sort of userbase that allow it to build an advertising business for a reason — but at the end of the day the company is a tax on a system that hasn’t really changed in decades.”

  And though very risky, he argues that Opendoor is far better positioned to shake up the status quo. 

  Here are two of his key points:

  “Sellers are uniquely disadvantaged under the current system, which is another way of saying they are an underserved market with unmet needs.” [Sellers are the side of the market that Opendoor is specifically targeting.]

  “Opendoor has a new business model: taking advantage of a theoretical arbitrage opportunity (earning fees on houses sold at a slight mark-up) by leveraging technology in pursuit of previously impossible scale that should, in theory, ameliorate risk.”

  And here’s what that could ultimately mean for the industry:

  “Opendoor has many more reasons why it might fail than Zillow or Redfin, but its potential upside is far greater as a result. First is the immediate opportunity: sellers who can’t wait. However, as Opendoor grows its seller base, especially geographically, its risk will start to decrease thanks to diversification and sheer size; that will allow it to lower its “market risk” charge which will lead to more sellers. More sellers means both less risk and an increasingly compelling product for buyers to access, first with a real estate agent and eventually directly. More buyers will mean lower marketing costs and faster sell-through, which will lower risk further and thus lower prices, pushing the cycle forward. It’s even possible to envision a future where Opendoor actually does uproot the anachronistic real estate agent system that is a relic of the pre-Internet era, and they will have done so with realtors not only not fighting them but, on the buying side, helping them.”

  I’m with Ben on this.

  2016.12.08