Thanks for reading!
I downplay it because I fundamentally disagree on the pace of innovation and the exponential increase in capabilities per dollar happening over time. I do not see the rapid acceleration - or at least, they are yet to substantively and publicly show it.
I also think it's a leap of logic to suggest that the former CTO of Stripe joining is somehow the fix they need, or proof they're going to accelerate.
Also, I fundamentally disagree - Stripe was an obvious business. Explaining what Stripe did wasn't difficult. The established ways of taking money were extremely clunky - perhaps there was RELUCTANCE to change, which is a totally fair thing to bring up, but that doesn't mean it wasn't obvious if you thought about it. What's so obvious about GPT? What's the magic trick here?
Anyway, again, thanks for reading, I know you don't necessarily agree, but you've given me a fair read.
Claiming Stripe was obvious is ahistorical unless you believe tens of thousands or even millions of entrepreneurs discarded $100B.
You have a small point that anyone who used authorize.net or similar wanted it to be better and that was obvious, but there's nearly infinite things people want to be better. I'd like breakfast, my commute, my car, my doctor, my vet, etc to be better. That you could make a better thing was incredibly non-obvious and that's why no one did.
I also think it's a leap of logic to suggest that the former CTO of Stripe joining is somehow the fix they need, or proof they're going to accelerate.
Also, I fundamentally disagree - Stripe was an obvious business. Explaining what Stripe did wasn't difficult. The established ways of taking money were extremely clunky - perhaps there was RELUCTANCE to change, which is a totally fair thing to bring up, but that doesn't mean it wasn't obvious if you thought about it. What's so obvious about GPT? What's the magic trick here?
Anyway, again, thanks for reading, I know you don't necessarily agree, but you've given me a fair read.