My list wasn't meant to exhaustive. Honestly not much of a list, just a few examples. SpaceX and Nvidia are both examples of deep technical moats, as are some of the others mentioned by commenters.
I agree with you that many moats are regulatory, but disagree that most moats are. Networks are powerful moats, customer lockin can work well, brand is a strong moat (at least for a time), speed and culture can function as moats.
Fwiw, I don't think any moat is ultimately perfect. Moats themselves are not meant to permanently stop an attacker - they are delaying tactics at best. Companies that stay ahead continuously re-invent and rebuild their differentiation and defenses.
Relationships with suppliers and customers are what gives any business most of its value.
I don't consider that to be part of a moat because you don't have to cross it before you begin competing with the business. Establishing suppliers and customers is just competing with whatever businesses would also want those deals.
A technical moat is knowledge that you have to have (maybe across multiple employees) before you can even begin to start competing. It's rare to come across any technology that couldn't be cloned by a few smart engineers in 6 months. Much more likely that you aren't allowed to build or sell the technology, or you don't have enough capital, or no one will sell you the parts, or it's illegal to start the business in the first place.
Network effects didn’t save MySpace, instead companies need to constantly adapt or risk disruption.
Historically many companies seemed like they had a much deeper moat when the real risk comes out of left field. Blockbuster didn’t die because a competitor suddenly opened a lot of stores instead the basic economics underpinning their business model changed.
Nvidia faces similar risks because they depend on access to world class fabs at reasonable prices. If hypothetically Intel suddenly develops a much better node and then keeps executing Nvidia could be left in the dust with little recourse.
My dad started his work as a Pediatric Hematologist Oncologist in the late 60s. He had a firm belief that cure rates could and would climb as a result of research and better clinical care. He spent his life pursuing both.
When people would ask him how he managed to stay so positive - he was one of the happiest people I’ve ever known - he’d reference the trends highlighted in this article.
That didn’t change how hard it was when he lost a patient, but I know he always had his eyes and his mind on the future.
This is an incredible example of science and medicine. Thanks OP for posting it.
This obituary is so well written that it could be a front page star on HN. I am not joking. Incredible. You dad was the like the good guy version of the Terminator -- unstoppable in all forms.
Sorry for your loss. He saved so many lives, what an incredible legacy he left on the world. He deserves to be celebrated widely. Please make a Wikipedia entry for his accomplishments?
> he recalled that when starting his residency at the Children's Hospital in Philadelphia in 1970, the survival rate for the sick children was only 30 percent
Jesus, 30 percent survival rate of children. I couldn't image working in that kind of situation and not be emotionally destroyed.
> Going from a 30 percent to an 80 percent cure rate, I'd say we are getting there
I don't fully understand how he did it. I know he took a lot from the line in the Talmud that said "whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world."
My mom says that his baseline was incredibly high and that he was incredibly resilient. He also had a big rebellious streak, an analytical mind, and endless compassion.
> the line in the Talmud that said "whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world."
I am not Jewish but I learned about this phrase watching the film Schindler's List in high school. That phrase, and listening to Ben Kingsley's character say it, has lived, rent-free, in my mind for the last umpteen years.
I was six when Flood came out. My brother had a bootleg copy, which I later "borrowed" and carried around with me in my walkman (also "borrowed"). It was so...different than anything any of my friends listened to, and I loved it.
But maybe the greatest thing about Flood was seeing Particle Man and Istanbul on Tiny Toons. It was as if all my favorite weird things in the world (at least for a kid) were part of the same pocket universe.
I still find myself humming different songs from Flood on the regular, unprompted. Thanks for posting this.
> The idea that Israel - or AIPAC - is somehow in control of the US government is straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Not sure why you bring this up, but the facts are very clear. Previous US administration broke its own laws that prohibit them to supply weapons to parties engaged in gross violations of human rights and war crimes. Among many things, AIPAC even unsit a Jewish(!) congressman whose only crime was to mention that Palestinians deserve human rights and dignity.
You need to re-frame the US/Israel alliance. Right now, it is more a far right alliance between Trump and Netanyahu. It's no longer about either of the states involved or the interactions they may have had in the past.
And to be extremely clear, because it's very likely someone will reply to claim antisemitism - I have a problem with Netanyahu and what Israel does under his leadership. I do not have a problem with people who identify as Jewish, ethnically or religiously.
There have been many books written on the subject, as in my previous comment, I suggested The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.
It's not antisemitic or even remotely conspiratorial to acknowledge that Israel and Israeli-Americans have been very successful in exerting influence on the federal government. I think it's bad-faith well-poisoning for you to bring up nonsense like the Protocols.
I agree. Although we should not downplay how vulnerable democracy can be to outside influence. And that can have significant negative consequences. Particularly as things like "national interest" are so debatable.
Totally agree with this. It’s also totally irrelevant and a false equivalency. Seeing how quickly a conversation shift to antisemitism is disheartening.
I agree this is unproven conspiracy theory BS, but there are a great many conspiracy theories being espoused in this post. I’m curious why it is only this one you saw fit to call out?
Not said as a joke: It isn’t a conspiracy if they actually are out to get you. I am seeing my country go down in a blaze of corruption in front of my very eyes.
On photography, in no real order, and probably overweight on street photography.
- Henri Cartier Bresson
- Joseph Koudelka
- Gordon Parks
- Phil Penman
- Alan Schiller
- Annie Leibovitz
- Micha bar Am
- Bruce Gilden
- Steve McCurry
- Constantine Manos
- Dorothea Lange
Well I do have you to thank for teaching me about combinatorial auctions :).
That said, you can think of the auction in two parts - the first gets the relevant people from the starting line to the actual bidding. The second part is where you actually make decisions. The latter part in this dynamic usually has few enough participants that a founder can run the variables in his/her head.
What would be interesting to see is whether or not more funds would get to the bidding stage with a robust combinatorial auction at the beginning of the whole thing.
Author here: Lost count of the various demo days coming up in the next few months. Happy to chime in on questions of how to deal with the run up to a demo day or the after effects.
Thanks. Great post!
How would you divide a seed and/or A round between angels and VCs? Is there a perfect mix in your opinion or something you would be opportunistic about, depending on who is interested?
In an ideal world, you'd build an order book of every investor that wants in and how much they want. Once you had that book filled, you'd allocate by weighing long term value, price, etc.
Realistically you can't do this (ok sometimes you can). The situation is dynamic and you generally want to take the bird in hand vs. risking the longer process. BUT there's a limit to that, and if you sequence things well - say start the longer processes first - then you have more flexibility.
But remember, the biggest point is that the seed round is just 1 moment in time. If you can't fit someone in but you like them, build the relationship for next time.
I particularly like Waymo because of aggressively most of the media/talking heads wrote them off as "never going to beat Tesla" because google.
In the end, they took a fundamentally different approach at all levels of the product and won.