Patrick Collison: "You shouldn't compete in markets you can't win."(twitter.com)
2 pointsby ahmetd17 days ago1 comment
  • andsoitis17 days ago
    That’s tautology, of course.

    More insightful is how you judge whether or not you could win. And when to have audacity to go against what others beleive your chances are for success.

    Also, “win” as a concept is deceptive. Unlike a finite game (like chess or go or poker), the game of business is infinite - there’s no “end of game” that declares a winner. Winning is more about staying in the game as long as possible.

    • JohnFen17 days ago
      Exactly so.

      I also read that statement as being functionally equivalent to "if you aren't already successfully in the space, then there's no point in bothering". That's the exact opposite of what we need for a healthy economy.

      • ahmetd15 days ago
        no it means if a space is extremely competitive u shouldnt compete in it. eg, opening up a restaurant in a city. unlikely to succeed even if u do its unlikely to be extraordinary.
    • ahmetd15 days ago
      I think what he's referring to is the notion that all companies want monopolies. Peter Thiel talks a lot about this. So if you can't have a monopoly, and you're in a business where everyone is lowering the prices etc, it's not ideal.

      I think "winning" here refers to success in money, power, etc. However society generally defines it!

      In my humble opinion, it doesn't matter if you're in the game for long if you don't even matter.

      Alrigth but the tldr is that he's looking for markets where domination is a possibility, so that's my takeaway anyways! :)