Zero to One Notes on Startups, Or how to Build the Future

many gems in this book

To think that it started as a lecture note... Blake Masters was once a college student. One day, on a course from Peter Thiel, he decided to create a note about it. The course, "Computer Science 183: Startup" went to became an internet sensation. Then with several changes, this book was published. ------------------------------------------------ So...what is this book's all about? As the name suggested, it talks about startups, business, and the future. In short, it talks about how to grow from zero to one. But it's not that kind of book that gives you a thorough step-by-step. Rather, it leads us to think about the past, the present, and the future of startups and businesses. What really caught my mind was Peter's explanation about monopoly. It's something that connotates with something bad, something greedy. But in fact, it's what every company should aim for to be released from the competition trap. Monopoly, in short, turns to be a trigger that sparks change and innovation. To quote from this book, "Monopoly is not a pathology or an exception. Monopoly is the condition of every successful business." Then, how to make your business a monopoly? In short, make sure your business starts small, aim to dominate a niche market first, and then slowly grow. Take Facebook as an example. It started as a local network website to connect fellow university students. It learns, then slowly spread to other campuses, cities, and countries, and then we have Facebook as we know it. My take here is just an over-simplified version of this book. It didn't stop there. It takes steps to slowly nurture your business. But if you're looking for an easy to read book to accompany you to build your business, then this is a good companion.

Addictive book right here! Being part of the PayPal Mafia then breaking down how to make your Startup different is just amazing.

** spoiler alert ** As it is, the only vertical progress made is computer technology. Your company can create a lot of value without actually becoming valuable. Pick the right battles — fight with honor and pride. Business is like a game of chess, strategy is key, you have to consider your endgame to succeed. Indefinite optimism — The future cannot be predicted, but it will be better Everything known today used to be unknown. Today obvious things had to be discovered. You're either on the bus or off the bus. You need to give other cogent reasons to pick your firm over others. To be successful, your product should be at least 10 times better than your closest competitor. To enter an industry, you need to identify if it is a fast, or slow-growing technology and treat it as appropriate. Cultivate durability. Be the last mover in the market. Plan for the next 20 years or more, and anticipate changes in the market. Keep your secrets to yourself, big companies have reasons for success, that their competitors don't see Founders are not ordinary people. They occupy extremes of bell curves, and once in a while, they are found occupying both ends at once, i.e., being cash poor but rich on paper. Business needs eccentric leaders like Bill Gates, even though they are often magnets for hostility. The biggest danger for a founder is to become self-conceited such that he loses his mind. Funny facts at one place 🙂

An interesting book by a person with a lot of pedigree in the startup scene. It's all about his point of view on business and starting companies of a specific type. I found my self nodding to some parts and disagreeing with some bits. His examples and the data seems cherry-picked and the worldview that he presents also seemed very selective. I'm beginning to think that having such a strong worldview is an essential ingredient for success in longshot, future-looking companies and in general doing things that deviate from the norm. Overall I'm glad I read the book and would recommend it to almost everyone even though I wasn't blown away after completing it.

What we hate about business books is their clichés, their fawning, their Panglossian grin, their being completely invalid because they don't consider survivorship bias, and their prose. This one avoids all these things and is radical in an unconventional way.* It's hard to know what to think of Thiel. He's easy to demonise - much easier than his loudmouth peer Musk. For instance, he's anti-college, anti-affirmative-action, anti-Clinton - and even openly anti-competition! (And a vampire!) But I've been impressed with his clarity and sense of proportion in interviews, and nowhere here did I find the Girardian anti-humanist conservatism that Gawker, Vulture, Vox, (...) made me expect. For instance, this spiel moves me every time I hear it - the billions of hours we steal from children every year: We teach every young person the same subjects in the same ways, irrespective of individual talents and preferences. Students who don’t learn best by sitting at a desk are made to feel somehow inferior, while children who excel on conventional measures like tests and assignments end up defining their identities in terms of this weirdly contrived academic parallel reality. And it gets worse as students ascend to higher levels of the tournament. Elite students climb confidently until they reach a level of competition sufficiently intense to beat their dreams out of them. Higher education is the place where people who had big plans in high school get stuck in fierce rivalries with equally smart peers over conventional careers like management consulting and investment banking. For the privilege of bring turned into conformists, students (or their families) pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in skyrocketing tuition that continues to outpace inflation. Why are we doing this to ourselves? and similarly plaintive and humane bits: Why work with a group of people who don’t even like each other? Many seem to think it’s a sacrifice necessary for making money. But taking a merely professional view of the workplace, in which free agents check in and out on a transactional basis, is worse than cold: it’s not even rational. Since time is your most valuable asset, it’s odd to spend it working with people who don’t envision any long-term future together. If you can’t count durable relationships among the fruits of your time at work, you haven’t invested your time well—even in purely financial terms. He is simply not simple. There are four positive references to Marx, four to Zuckerberg; two to Shakespeare, two to Bezos. He is a revisionist, then, intolerable to one side and oddly scathing about the other. (The chapter which translates Google's public rhetoric is not complimentary, for instance.) His niche seems to be the repugnant but true. So, like Taleb without the bluster and boasting. Which feels bizarre, like I'm in a different timeline where Taleb is actually aiming to not alienate a mass audience. He says true things about things I know about: the history of economic thought (Walras did indeed lift the formalism of general equilibrium from physics) and the deadened air of contemporary Political Philosophy. His contribution to Trump's campaign was risible and maybe a defection against the world - but notice that even this lapse speaks to his ability to find unexpected truths - FiveThirtyEight gave an 80% chance of a Clinton win at that point. So maybe his analysis and helpful checklist for startups are true too. It's a shame few critics of capitalism will read this - for he is one, in his way: Americans mythologize competition and credit it with saving us from socialist bread lines. Actually, capitalism and competition are opposites. Capitalism is premised on the accumulation of capital, but under perfect competition, all profits get competed away. The lesson for entrepreneurs is clear: If you want to create and capture lasting value, don’t build an undifferentiated commodity business. (Of actually-existing capitalism I mean.) How on earth can you argue that monopolies give more social utility than high competition? First, distinguish three kinds: 1) criminal saboteurs and antitrustees (Apple); 2) government-licenced pets (US car dealers, the East India Companies); and 3) "creative monopolies" who gain their massive market share by doing something much, much better than everyone else. Obviously only the latter is good for society. I was recently rushing to the airport, and pulled the quickest route (via underground via train via foot) from Google Maps. On the way, I noticed a sign in the Tube and realised that actually a different line was a much shorter route. So I walked 10 mins to that line, to find, of course, that it was suspended all weekend and, consequently, that Google is better at my life than I am. This is what he means. He goes further and says that the spare resources and vision of a creative monopoly is the source of innovation and so Monopoly is the condition of every successful business. The model is structurally the same as the old one about the Agrarian revolution: farms meant that for the first time, not everyone had to work full-time on food production, which let them specialise in other roles (war, gods, justice, lore) and eventually - slowly - invent new things. Even so, I thought of an alternative road to dynamism, given perfect competition and so no profits: competition leads to low prices, which leads to savings, which are pooled into investment funds, which give entrepreneurs the same kind of space (and potentially the long view) that profits do. Other people would not use the word "monopoly", trying to manage the connotations, trying to persuade us by smoothing things over. This is not Thiel's strategy. One chapter argues that "Success is not just luck", mostly on the back of the existence of serially successful entrepreneurs (it is plausible that once could be luck, and plausible that one success brings massive funding, deserved or not. It isn't plausible that someone could dumbly blunder into 3 billion-dollar executions, even given the easy ride for the second and third). It pains me slightly to admit the latter, because it tints my otherwise complete loathing of Steve Jobs. --- Misc notes * He notes that the term "developed nations" is a sign of our lack of ambition, of a premature, smug, quasi-willed halt. * The dot-com boom was even crazier than you thought: A South Korean firm wired us $5 million without first negotiating a deal or signing any documents. When I tried to return the money, they wouldn't tell me where to send it. * It is not yet clear whether killing Gawker was good or bad. Either way, like his Trump donation, you must acknowledge the sheer gall and direction. * One should do a Straussian (between-the-lines) reading of anyone smart, conservative and public, because there will be a lot that's unsayable. I don't care to. The few who knew what could be learned, Foolish enough to put their whole heart on show, reveal their feelings to the crowd below? These we have always crucified and burned. * Actually hold on. The man's a transhumanist, an anti-school radical, a funder of one of our only large-scale experiments in urban planning or libertarianism, a rationalist. Why do we call him a conservative? --- Short, original, modest, and he credits his ghostwriter on the cover. Minus one point because it makes 200 large claims in 200 pages and has no citations for anything. * Thinking about it, it's not so much that he avoids cliche, as that the erudite context defangs them. "Zero to One" sounds like the usual kind of motivational crap, except that it's actually a good illustration of his maxim of creative monopoly ("0 -> 1 is much, much better than 1 -> n"). And the subtitle "How to build the future" is not figurative and not petty: he cites Bostrom's trajectories about the ultimate fate of the universe - and is only focussed on technology because that's what will get us past the Rise and Fall trap, the stagnation trap and the extinction trap.

Just re-read this book. Thiel is well read and his perspective is priceless

This was my first read on startups. Hence i could not compare it with other books but its a nice read for those who have ideas which they think they can convert to make some money. Nowadays startups have emerged like mushrooms. Everyone with a little idea think that they will become an entrepreneur but one should consider several parameters before stepping into a startup journey and this book brilliantly answers the questions one should ask themselves in order to become the next successful entrepreneur...Overall an informative read.

Every king was a living god, and every god a murdered king. Perhaps every modern king is just a scapegoat who has managed to delay his own execution.

Peter's experiences -- founder of PayPal and Palantir, investor in hundreds of startups, head of the PayPal Mafia who went on to create great companies and great value -- give him a unique perspective on the startup world. Read this as an smart counter position to "agile, incremental improvement"; the title, 0 to 1, refers to creating something genuinely new, something that provides 10x the value. His take on the recent economic history of booms and dot com busts was equally insightful; he puts together a good argument for how timing is critical. His key position -- is success luck, or skill? -- warrants re-readings.

Here Peter Thiel talks about his findings on the startup world, the highs and lows. It’s an interesting start and a good build up, however the plot of the book gets lost when there are three chapters left to go. The ending chapters attempt to conclude a point that never was fully developed and leave the reader with hunger for more consistency. The first part is good though.

Going from 0 to 1 means creating something new, whereas going from 1 to n is making more copies of something that already exists. If you want to create a successful start-up, then aim to go from Zero to One, to create a unique business, and to avoid as much competition as possible. This book also offers some insights (or notes) on how to start and run a start-up in the current world where new start-ups appear constantly but only a few last. There are definitely great points that can make you think more deeply about the goal of creating a business if that's what you are going for.

Reread (in one sitting!) It remains my favorite ever “business” book.

This is a mind changing book. There is no list of what you have to do to start your Start-Up. There is just a punch of mandatory questions that must be answered clearly before taking your first steps forward in your project. I loved the part that was answering the questions, like why we are more economically pessimistic rather than earlier generation, and why are not any more into trying to create something new, or starting a new company.

Probably one of my favorite entrepreneurial books thus far. I love reading books by founders, and this book is written by a “Founder of Founders.” Peter Thiel is essentially the “Don” of the *PayPal Mafia, *which is a group of former PayPal employees that have since gone on to start 7 companies that are now each worth over a billion dollars. So reading this book was like getting the wisdom from a guy that had advised some of the best and most successful founders in the last 15 years. A fascinating read that does not disappoint. It's probably not the best book for starting a small business, but I only say that because all the examples and points are geared toward people starting businesses that have huge potential. This is definitely not a *$100 Start-Up* competitor, but there are bits of wisdom that can be applied to any business out there. Having said that, there are some fantastic questions in this book that every founder of a new business needs to consider. I will definitely be coming back to read these questions again and again. In addition, Peter questions the status quo and challenges the beliefs of many in ways that might surprise you.

geek thug genius

A small book jam-packed with insights and ideas

was better than i expected, but felt a little arrogant or overconfident

I expected more, but I guess this is what you get when the book is formed out of lecture notes. Still many good ideas. [4h38m]

This book is a summary a course about startups that the author, Peter Thiel, used to teach to college students. It’s more resemblant of a collection of wise aphorisms that have been expanded into chapters (rather than an actual structured course). In any case, Thiel is a sharp, incisive outside in Silicon Valley and I’m happy to take his advice. This book answers some unspoken questions for “founders” of startups: how do you define your market? pick your founders? What’s a monopoly, and does google count? Thiel normalizes some Silicon Valley parlance (founder, startup, VC) but rejects some, too (he doesn’t like the word “disrupt”). I used to wonder why some individual who founded a successful Internet business in 1995 gets to make major investment decisions that determine whether startups make it or break it in the Valley. I’m not talking about Thiel, or any other specific investor— just the idea that success 25 years ago somehow translates to insight into today‘s market. Thiel founded PayPal, and Palantir, but has spent most of the last 20ish years as a VC. However, he changed my view on this point. With such well-defined principles, it’s no surprise that he was able to build PayPal into a commercial success, or that he remains a shrewd and effective VC in 2020. If I ever decide to found a company, I’ll definitely reread this book.

I read this ages ago early in my startup life. I can't remember the key takeaway, but I know do know it's a collection of lessons and thoughts from a legend in the startup world inspiring my entrepreneurial thinking. Economies of scale, powers of exponential, don't sell if you're a market leader in a growing market, and the mechanics of mafia are particularly interesting.

PayPal'ın kurucularından, Facebook'un yatırımcılarından ve Homo Deus kitabında "2050 yılında sağlıklı olursanız ve zengin iseniz, ölümü unutun diyen kişi. Mevcut bir şeyi daha iyi, daha verimli yapmak, 1'den n'ye götürür. Ama yeni bir şey yapmak 0'dan 1'e götürür. Kitapta çeşitli çarpıcı görüşler var. Bunlardan birisi de "ilerleme sağlamak için tekelleşmeye izin vermeliyiz bir yere kadar". Değişimin olmadığı dünyada tekelcilik kötüdür. Günümüz dünyasında tekelcilik gelişimin, ilerlemenin gereğidir. 2013'te Twiter $24milyara halka arz edildiğinde Times'ın değeri $2milyar idi. Times yılda $133milyon kar açıklarken, Twitter zarar açıklıyordu. Hadi, gel de açıkla. Herhalde en uygun cevap "nakit akışı".

This was a lot more interesting and political than I thought it would be.

Listened to the audio book on the flight, very interesting. Really enjoyed the description of the types of optimism