The more I read articles from 20 or 30 years ago, the more I realize how little analysts actually knew about the future. Entrepreneurs and scientists are the ones who correctly predict it—because they create it, or at least attempt to.
Some plans succeed, while others fail. It’s a numbers game.
Invest in every half-decent Bezos you find, and one of them will likely make you a multimillionaire in a decade or two.
bitpush•8mo ago
Puts things into perspective of what we read today.
I don't understand the logic behind your sentences at all.
Bezos is literally a one-in-million entrepreneur. Like you say, it's a numbers game. The vast majority of entrepreneurs fail (especially startup, "hockey-stick growth"-type entrepreneurs).
But you seem to be holding analysts to a much higher standard. Yes, lots and lots of analysts are wrong about the future, but a few of them are right. I'd probably bet that analysts are more right than entrepreneurs are, simply due to the fact that it's easier to be right about generalities than to do everything necessary it takes to be a successful entrepreneur.
vivzkestrel•8mo ago
wouldnt it be amazing if you could somehow crunch predictions from every analyst made in the last 30 yrs and tell who was right and who wasnt using machine learning and how much money they could have made you?
motorest•8mo ago
> Bezos is literally a one-in-million entrepreneur.
That's besides the point. The critical aspect is that Amazon was tapping into a market that Wall Street analysis failed to even understand existed, even though it was there staring at them and poking them in the eye.
It's hard to even conceive how, in the middle of the dot-com boom, market analysis systematically failed to even identify there was a market for cloud infrastructure.
It's like during the gold rush failing to realize there's a market for pickaxes.
It's very easy for internet randos to dismiss Amazon's strategy as one-in-a-million bets and something no one would ever conceive. Except this was exactly the opposite. Amazon was sitting on top of a huge compute infrastructure, which they had to build themselves from scratch, and which the company was financing as a purely operational expense. Any business analyst worth it's name would ask "how can we turn this into a revenue stream?" If they looked outside the figurative window, they would see lines of CTOs of dotcom startups imploring everyone for renting any semblance of compute infrastructure to get their startup off the ground. You do not need to be a genius to put two and two together.
petesergeant•8mo ago
I don't think you can use one of the world's most historically successful entrepreneurs to make this point.
> But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
MaxPock•8mo ago
Some plans succeed, while others fail. It’s a numbers game.
Invest in every half-decent Bezos you find, and one of them will likely make you a multimillionaire in a decade or two.
bitpush•8mo ago
3abiton•8mo ago
hn_throwaway_99•8mo ago
Bezos is literally a one-in-million entrepreneur. Like you say, it's a numbers game. The vast majority of entrepreneurs fail (especially startup, "hockey-stick growth"-type entrepreneurs).
But you seem to be holding analysts to a much higher standard. Yes, lots and lots of analysts are wrong about the future, but a few of them are right. I'd probably bet that analysts are more right than entrepreneurs are, simply due to the fact that it's easier to be right about generalities than to do everything necessary it takes to be a successful entrepreneur.
vivzkestrel•8mo ago
motorest•8mo ago
That's besides the point. The critical aspect is that Amazon was tapping into a market that Wall Street analysis failed to even understand existed, even though it was there staring at them and poking them in the eye.
It's hard to even conceive how, in the middle of the dot-com boom, market analysis systematically failed to even identify there was a market for cloud infrastructure.
It's like during the gold rush failing to realize there's a market for pickaxes.
It's very easy for internet randos to dismiss Amazon's strategy as one-in-a-million bets and something no one would ever conceive. Except this was exactly the opposite. Amazon was sitting on top of a huge compute infrastructure, which they had to build themselves from scratch, and which the company was financing as a purely operational expense. Any business analyst worth it's name would ask "how can we turn this into a revenue stream?" If they looked outside the figurative window, they would see lines of CTOs of dotcom startups imploring everyone for renting any semblance of compute infrastructure to get their startup off the ground. You do not need to be a genius to put two and two together.
petesergeant•8mo ago
> But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.