Why Peter Thiel Is Wrong About the Search Monopoly

Peter Thiel claimed at Farsight 2011 yesterday that running a search engine currently incurs about $5-10 billion in fixed costs, meaning that search is a natural monopoly where players can’t make money unless they have about 30-35% market share (video here starting around 8:00). It’s a fascinating analysis of the search industry, although in my mind hopelessly misguided.

First of all, Blekko is a clear counter-example. It’s a viable search option and has a much lower burn rate. DuckDuckGo is also an interesting product, although it doesn’t quite qualify as a contradiction of Thiel’s thesis since it runs partially on APIs like Yahoo’s.

Ignore the Existing Cost Base

More generally, taking the existing cost base as a given in technology markets is pretty foolish, from a couple of perspectives.  Consider the 80/20 rule.  In most areas, Google and Bing have already exceeded user needs and are working on features that provide very incremental benefits.  It might be nice getting to a result a couple of seconds faster with Google Instant, and Google’s spelling correction (which occupies an entire development team) is pretty cool.  However, a new competitor can get to 80% of Google’s spelling correction pretty quickly. No one’s going to miss the remaining 20% if that product provides some truly novel benefit.  Whether DuckDuckGo’s privacy or Blekko’s slashes qualify as something many people want remains to be seen.  But Thiel is ignoring the entire concept of disruptive versus sustaining innovation.

Would Thiel make the same argument in the car industry?  If we looked at Toyota and General Motors, would we assume that starting a car company requires billions in fixed costs?  Clearly not; just look at Tesla.

Fixed Costs Aren’t Really Fixed

We all know that fixed technology go down over time, from hardware to bandwidth to (open source) software.  New upstarts in search will be able to do more with less, especially if they choose to focus on providing value along a specific dimension of customer needs rather than trying to do everything at once. Think about what that $5-10 billion in fixed costs really represents: video search, image search, ad serving, real-time search, and a million other things.  Do you really think every search engine needs to offer all of those features?  Clearly not!

The search field is disintegrating into more specialized applications.  Although it’s in Google and Bing’s interest to keep all of those applications under the hood of one monolithic search engine, that’s clearly not the only model.  I will bet you that Hipmunk is going to beat the pants off Google and Bing for flight search (at least until they get bought), and with much less investment. There’s incredible value in not being tied to an established mindset and infrastructure.  That’s the whole point of startups.

What’s Really Disruptive?

The key for search startups in avoiding the fixed cost trap is that their innovations must be truly disruptive.  They have to satisfy a need that current search engines do not, that users care about, and that is not too tightly coupled to the entire search infrastructure that incumbents have in place.  I think this the main problem for Powerset, the semantic search startup Thiel invested in.  They were targeting the mass market, and thus their strategy was tightly coupled to all the features that mass market users have come to expect.  In addition, generalist users probably didn’t care enough about semantic search to give up other features.  If customers aren’t willing to give up other benefits for your innovation, then it’s not really disruptive.  Powerset might have done better if they had focused on a niche that absolutely had to have semantic features (maybe patent search?) and then expanded over time into other segments.

I’m Biased

Since I’m working on a vertical search engine, I’m hopelessly biased. And I actually think Thiel’s plans to invest in underlying infrastructure technology make a lot of sense. I just wish he hadn’t described the economics of search in such a superficial way.

Related Posts:

  • http://topsy.com/www.brekiri.com/blog/405/why-peter-thiel-is-wrong-about-the-search-monopoly/?utm_source=pingback&utm_campaign=L2 Tweets that mention Why Peter Thiel Is Wrong About the Search Monopoly « The Business Research Blog — Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by newsery3 and Y Combinator Newest!, Greg Gentschev. Greg Gentschev said: Why Peter Thiel is wrong about search being a natural monopoly: http://cot.ag/gcWA68 #futuresearch [...]

  • http://www.myninjaplease.com/?p=20294 myninjaplease

    [...] all know that fixed technology go down over time, from hardware to bandwidth to (open source) software.  New upstarts [...]

  • zipflash

    The real question is how much computing and storage do you need to index the entire Web every few weeks, and cache page text every few days. That is the fixed cost to respond well to a single random query. Everything else scales with the number of users.

  • http://www.brekiri.com/ Greg4

    That is an important question, although I don't think the answer is $5 billion worth of computing.But more importantly, I don't think the “index the entire Web” assumption is correct. None of the current search engines actually indexes everything, and nobody misses the rest. I bet you could cut Google's index by 50% without anyone noticing. The hard part is figuring out which 50%. But here's an illustration: Take a Techcrunch headline from a few days ago and Google it. Notice the level of syndication and scraping going on.Apart from that, there are lots of other ways you could create a more focused and cost-effective general search engine. Say you were family-oriented and didn't index any porn (or MTV!). Or say you were the search engine for canonical information and didn't index 90% of news and social media. Part of the issue with the current search engines is that they all have identical positioning, which seriously constrains their ability to either reduce costs or add value for customers in original ways.

  • zipflash

    Certainly seems right that “minimum efficient scale” is far below $5b, and falling.One potential search niche is to offer total privacy by default. This is anathema to ad serving, of course. I've long thought that PC vendors should fund a nonprofit consortium to maintain and serve a decent minimalist search engine. If it cost $100m a year to run, spread across Dell, Apple, Acer, etc., they would hardly notice it. As a nonprofit, it would need no ads, and thus could offer total privacy by default. This would be an uncopiable advantage: ad-serving rivals can never go there without blowing up their own business.PC vendors have a shared financial interest in fracturing the search business. If they offered this as the default search engine on all new PCs, Google could lose 20 share points or more within a single year, which would completely transform their business.

  • http://www.brekiri.com/ Greg4

    Very interesting point about the importance of distribution, although
    wouldn't it be browser developers more than PC manufacturers that could make
    a move like that?

    As far as privacy, DuckDuckGo (http://duckduckgo.com/about.ht...) seems to do
    a good job.

  • http://blog.intotheminds.com Pierre

    What this post inspires to me is that Peter Thiel has no idea what effectuation means and thinks only in terms of “causation” process.

blog comments powered by Disqus