Companies always try to make it seem like data is valuable. Attention is valuable. With attention, you get the data for free. What they monetize is attention. Data is a small part to optimize the sale of ads but attention is the important commodity.
I feel like the the data to drive the really interesting capabilities (biological, chemical, material, etc, etc, etc) is not going to come in large part from end users.
Yes, during the 2000's there was the "mashup" fads. People creating companies around mashing data from one service to another. Like putting Craigslist listings on a Google Map.
And guess what, all those mashup companies didn't last a couple of years. Because they didn't have a direct access to data.
This is heavily context dependent... There are plenty of situations where everyone knows the relevant factors, it's who has possession of land, resources, people, etc.
I feel like algorithmic/architectural breakthroughs are still the area that will show the most wins. The thing is that insights/breakthroughs of that sort that tend to be highly portable. As Meta showed, you can just pay people 10 million to come tell you what they're doing over there at that other place.
Distribution, brand, network effects, regulatory positioning, and execution speed all create defensibility; "data helps" doesn't imply "data is everything"
Also as foundation models improve, today's "hard to solve" problems become tomorrow's "easy to solve" problems
Attention is the only moat.
Companies always try to make it seem like data is valuable. Attention is valuable. With attention, you get the data for free. What they monetize is attention. Data is a small part to optimize the sale of ads but attention is the important commodity.
Why else are celebrities so well paid?
User attention to get user data?
I feel like the the data to drive the really interesting capabilities (biological, chemical, material, etc, etc, etc) is not going to come in large part from end users.
Information was always the moat for everything. We literally have spies who risk their lives to try to gain access to information.
Yes, during the 2000's there was the "mashup" fads. People creating companies around mashing data from one service to another. Like putting Craigslist listings on a Google Map.
And guess what, all those mashup companies didn't last a couple of years. Because they didn't have a direct access to data.
This is heavily context dependent... There are plenty of situations where everyone knows the relevant factors, it's who has possession of land, resources, people, etc.
I feel like algorithmic/architectural breakthroughs are still the area that will show the most wins. The thing is that insights/breakthroughs of that sort that tend to be highly portable. As Meta showed, you can just pay people 10 million to come tell you what they're doing over there at that other place.
inb4 "then why do Meta's models still suck?"