History shows pioneers who fund massive infrastructure shifts, like railroads or the early internet, frequently lose their investment. The real profits are captured later by companies that build services on top of the now-established, de-risked platform.
Related Insights
The CEO of Africa's largest bank states they strategically avoid being on the cutting edge. This "fast follower" approach allows them to adopt proven innovations responsibly while avoiding the high costs and risks of being a pioneer.
Some companies execute a 3-5 year plan and then revert to average returns. Others 'win by winning'—their success creates new opportunities and network effects, turning them into decade-long compounders that investors often sell too early.
Contrary to the belief that number two players can be viable, most tech markets are winner-take-all. The market leader captures the vast majority of economic value, making investments in second or third-place companies extremely risky.
![David George - Building a16z Growth, Investing Across the AI Stack, and Why Markets Misprice Growth - [Invest Like the Best, EP.450] thumbnail](https://megaphone.imgix.net/podcasts/8da7dbd8-ceeb-11f0-941c-ef83bcdd4c9f/image/d44107bc94719f78fbe91befb141073e.jpg?ixlib=rails-4.3.1&max-w=3000&max-h=3000&fit=crop&auto=format,compress)
History shows that transformative innovations like airlines, vaccines, and PCs, while beneficial to society, often fail to create sustained, concentrated shareholder value as they become commoditized. This suggests the massive valuations in AI may be misplaced, with the technology's benefits accruing more to users than investors in the long run.
While consumer fintech gets the hype, the most systematically important opportunities lie in building 'utility services' that connect existing institutions. These complex, non-sexy infrastructure plays—like deposit networks—enable the entire ecosystem to function more efficiently, creating a deep moat by becoming critical financial market plumbing.
In a new, high-risk category, betting on infrastructure ('shovels') isn't necessarily safer. If the category fails, both app and infra lose. But if it succeeds, the application layer captures disproportionately more value, making the infrastructure a lower-upside bet for the same level of existential risk.
During major platform shifts like AI, it's tempting to project that companies will capture all the value they create. However, competitive forces ensure the vast majority of productivity gains (the "surplus") flows to end-users, not the technology creators.
The most profound innovations in history, like vaccines, PCs, and air travel, distributed value broadly to society rather than being captured by a few corporations. AI could follow this pattern, benefiting the public more than a handful of tech giants, especially with geopolitical pressures forcing commoditization.
Large platforms focus on massive opportunities right in front of them ('gold bricks at their feet'). They consciously ignore even valuable markets that require more effort ('gold bricks 100 feet away'). This strategic neglect creates defensible spaces for startups in those niche areas.
Seeing an existing successful business is validation, not a deterrent. By copying their current model, you start where they are today, bypassing their years of risky experimentation and learning. The market is large enough for multiple winners.
