Perplexity is pursuing multiple, seemingly unrelated strategic directions at once—competing with browsers, financial terminals, and trying to acquire social media assets. This scattered approach suggests a lack of focus that could undermine its long-term viability.
Related Insights
While tech giants could technically replicate Perplexity, their core business models—advertising for Google, e-commerce for Amazon—create a fundamental conflict of interest. An independent player can align purely with the user's best interests, creating a strategic opening that incumbents are structurally unable to fill without cannibalizing their primary revenue streams.
Focusing only on trendy sectors leads to intense competition where the vast majority of startups fail. True opportunity lies in contrarian ideas that others overlook or dismiss, as these markets have fewer competitors.
Unlike OpenAI or Google, Perplexity AI doesn't build its own foundational models. This lack of a core asset means it cannot offer publishers lucrative licensing deals for their content. Consequently, mounting copyright lawsuits from major publishers pose a much greater existential threat, as Perplexity has no bargaining chips.
Large enterprises navigate a critical paradox with new technology like AI. Moving too slowly cedes the market and leads to irrelevance. However, moving too quickly without clear direction or a focus on feasibility results in wasting millions of dollars on failed initiatives.
Conventional wisdom to 'stay focused' is flawed. Breakthrough growth often comes from making many small, exploratory bets. YipitData's success wasn't from perfecting one thing, but from the one small, tangential bet each year that drove 90% of the growth while others failed.
Many firms are stuck in "pilot purgatory," launching numerous small, siloed AI tests. While individually successful, these experiments fail to integrate into the broader business system, creating an illusion of progress without delivering strategic, enterprise-level value.
Even a company with significant revenue can be stuck in the "problem-market fit" stage if it introduces too much complexity. Pursuing multiple products, ICPs, or go-to-market motions dilutes focus and exponentially increases difficulty, hindering the ability to scale effectively.
When a niche-dominant company like Remitly announces a massive TAM expansion, it can be a negative signal. This move often means abandoning a defensible moat to compete in a larger, more competitive market where its specialized advantages no longer apply, risking its core business.
While ignoring competitors is naive, constantly reacting to their every move is a crutch for founders who lack a strong, opinionated vision for their own product. Healthy balance involves strategic awareness without sacrificing your own roadmap.
Many founders fail not from a lack of market opportunity, but from trying to serve too many customer types with too many offerings. This creates overwhelming complexity in marketing, sales, and product. Picking a narrow niche simplifies operations and creates a clearer path to traction and profitability.
