Summary & Insights
0:00:05 should not be taken as legal business tax
0:00:06 or investment advice,
0:00:09 or be used to evaluate any investment or security
0:00:11 and is not directed at any investors
0:00:14 or potential investors in any A16Z fund.
0:00:18 For more details, please see a16z.com/disclosures.
0:00:22 – Hi everyone, welcome to the A6NZ podcast, I’m Sonal.
0:00:25 So this week to continue our 10-year anniversary series
0:00:27 since the founding of A6NZ,
0:00:29 we’re actually resurfacing some of our previous episodes
0:00:32 featuring founders Mark Andreessen and Ben Horwitz.
0:00:34 If you haven’t heard our latest episode
0:00:35 with Stuart Butterfield turning the tables
0:00:37 as the entrepreneur interviewing them,
0:00:40 please do check that out and other episodes in this series
0:00:41 that we’ve been running all week
0:00:45 on our website at a6nz.com/10.
0:00:48 But this episode was actually recorded in 2014
0:00:50 on the five-year anniversary of the firm
0:00:52 and features Michael Copeland interviewing Ben and Mark
0:00:54 about disruption theory,
0:00:57 as well as key traits of entrepreneurs.
0:00:59 – Disruption theory has been in the news of late
0:01:01 as it relates to Clayton Christiansen,
0:01:02 you know, the master of this.
0:01:04 And I just wanna ask you guys not so much
0:01:07 about the criticism of him,
0:01:10 but from where you set that theory
0:01:13 and his thinking kind of galvanized itself into a book
0:01:17 in 1997, you know, do you build companies differently today?
0:01:22 Does, do those theories still hold water or what’s changed?
0:01:26 – Yeah, so I think his book was actually quite brilliant.
0:01:28 It’s funny that it’s coming under criticism now
0:01:30 after he’s been proving like completely right
0:01:32 and the general idea that he had.
0:01:35 It’s kind of, it actually reminds me of the creationist attacks
0:01:39 on evolution where like, yes, from a,
0:01:41 it’s like intellectualism at its worst, right?
0:01:43 It’s like, oh, here’s something wrong
0:01:45 with Darwin’s original theory.
0:01:48 And it’s like, okay, now we’ve based all of biology on it.
0:01:49 We’ve made tremendous progress.
0:01:50 Like how about that?
0:01:52 And this is kind of like, you know,
0:01:55 I don’t believe in electricity, you know?
0:01:59 And you know, this is kind of the kind of business version
0:02:03 of that where, you know, he developed the theory,
0:02:05 all of us in high tech.
0:02:08 And it was an amazing business book at the time
0:02:11 because it explained a phenomenon that, you know,
0:02:12 and now is kind of obvious,
0:02:16 but in 1997 was tricky, which is why does there,
0:02:18 really why do there need to be new companies?
0:02:19 – Right.
0:02:22 – And what’s happened when we just got through talking about
0:02:24 like there’s an explosion of new companies
0:02:26 and these companies aren’t trivial,
0:02:28 they’re becoming very, very important company,
0:02:33 you know, companies like Google and Facebook and so forth.
0:02:37 And so he’s kind of been proven right.
0:02:39 And then not only has he been proven right
0:02:40 on kind of the large level,
0:02:45 but the mechanics that prevent the kind of incumbents
0:02:49 from innovating at the same rate as the new company
0:02:51 are still completely in effect.
0:02:56 And we, you know, use his models all the time
0:02:58 in our thinking and our analysis.
0:03:03 And no doubt there are probably some minor problems
0:03:07 with examples he’s used or like the way he worded it
0:03:10 or what have you, but like basically he was right.
0:03:11 – Yeah, I would also say two things.
0:03:14 Let’s say one is we actually use this theory basically
0:03:15 to tell us what not to invest in.
0:03:16 – Yes, right.
0:03:17 – As well as what to invest in.
0:03:18 – So how so?
0:03:20 – Well, so for example, we have this basically
0:03:22 this theory that basically it’s very, very dangerous.
0:03:24 So one of the great things about our industry
0:03:26 about venture capital is you get to do these things
0:03:28 that basically disrupt sort of the big
0:03:30 establishing incumbent companies.
0:03:32 Conversely, a very dangerous thing to do is to attack
0:03:35 companies that we, our internal term is the new incumbents.
0:03:37 And so it’s one thing to like go attack, you know,
0:03:39 a tech company that’s been in business for 50 years
0:03:41 that’s on its six C or something like that.
0:03:42 It’s another thing to go attack Google
0:03:43 being run by Larry Page.
0:03:44 – Right.
0:03:46 – Because Google being, you know, Larry Page
0:03:48 is like fully aware of the theory of disruption
0:03:49 and in full command of his company.
0:03:51 And if you like, he sees a disruptive threat coming.
0:03:53 He is quite capable of doing the things to head it off
0:03:55 that a, you know, fourth generation professional CEO
0:03:56 might not be able to do.
0:03:59 So anyway, so that was one thing I want to say.
0:04:01 The other thing I want to say is disruption.
0:04:02 It’s a, I agree with Ben.
0:04:04 It’s funny that this is a topic now,
0:04:05 but since it is, it’s worth talking about
0:04:09 which is the term disruption by its very nature,
0:04:12 the term itself has negative connotations, right?
0:04:13 It’s disruption seems like
0:04:15 it’s one step away from destruction.
0:04:17 And so it gets, it’s got this kind of,
0:04:19 you see it in this kind of popular kind of conception
0:04:21 that there’s something bad about it.
0:04:23 The actual way that Christensen used the term
0:04:25 was actually in a very sort of applied way
0:04:28 in a very specific circumstance in business.
0:04:31 And, and actually in a very positive way,
0:04:33 which is basically he described as a way
0:04:34 that progress happens, right?
0:04:37 So progress doesn’t happen by basically old companies
0:04:38 like deciding to do new things.
0:04:39 Company, progress happens
0:04:41 because new companies decided to do new things.
0:04:43 And then disruption is the process
0:04:44 by which the new things are able to take over
0:04:45 from the old things.
0:04:47 If you decide you don’t like disruption,
0:04:49 what you’re basically saying is you don’t like new things,
0:04:49 right?
0:04:51 It’s basically to be against disruption
0:04:53 is to basically be pro the status quo.
0:04:54 And pro the status quo means the way,
0:04:55 however the world is today,
0:04:58 like that’s it, like that’s all we’re gonna have.
0:04:59 Like the way things work today,
0:05:01 this is as good as it’s ever gonna get.
0:05:02 The disruption argument is no, no, no, no, no, no,
0:05:04 things can become much better.
0:05:06 Products can become much better.
0:05:07 Businesses can become much better.
0:05:09 Opportunities for people can become much better.
0:05:11 And so it’s a, it’s a negatively connotated term
0:05:13 that has very positive implications.
0:05:15 And I think that that’s really at least in the last couple
0:05:17 of years that’s been lost in a lot of the commentary.
0:05:19 – You mentioned Google and one of the things
0:05:20 that we’ve seen, you know,
0:05:22 through the technology industry’s history
0:05:25 is that it’s very, very hard to disrupt yourself
0:05:27 and kind of make a transition from one thing to another.
0:05:31 IBM, maybe the only company that’s done it.
0:05:34 Google, you know, they’re trying everything.
0:05:36 You know, and Facebook is trying everything.
0:05:39 And do these companies somehow change the rules?
0:05:42 Or is it the same rules applying and, you know,
0:05:45 disruption theory catches up with them in 50 years maybe.
0:05:48 – So I think you’re, I think kind of have to break
0:05:51 that back apart and go back to what Mark said.
0:05:53 I think that people often think of big companies
0:05:55 can’t innovate, little companies can,
0:05:59 but the real truth is new companies can innovate
0:06:03 and companies that are so old that the original inventors
0:06:06 are gone, have a lot of trouble doing it.
0:06:10 And so if you go back to HP or IBM
0:06:13 or any of these companies, when the founder,
0:06:15 when Thomas Watson was running the company,
0:06:17 when Dave Packard was running the company,
0:06:20 they didn’t have any trouble doing new things.
0:06:22 And they did a phenomenal, I mean, HP in particular
0:06:24 did like a crazy number of new things,
0:06:29 just amazing and in retrospect, really phenomenal.
0:06:30 And if Mark Zuckerberg’s running the company
0:06:32 or Larry Page is running the company,
0:06:33 you know, that’s not an old company.
0:06:34 That’s a new company.
0:06:39 And as innovators, they, you know, we believe
0:06:43 and this gets back to why we don’t attack them
0:06:46 because they’ll attack right back and very effectively.
0:06:48 You know, they’re going to be able to do new things.
0:06:50 And like sometimes that will mean
0:06:52 bringing in new talent through acquisition
0:06:55 or new technologies through acquisition,
0:06:59 but they’re going to be able to think about the problem
0:07:02 through a lens that is not the business they’re in.
0:07:05 And that’s kind of, this is the amazing thing
0:07:08 that Clayton Christiansen laid out was that, you know,
0:07:10 if you’re like, if you’re an old company
0:07:12 run by professional managers,
0:07:13 you’re really good at studying
0:07:15 and optimizing the business you’re in.
0:07:17 And so if there’s a new business that comes along
0:07:22 that doesn’t, is inconsistent with that, you get stuck.
0:07:23 But if you’re Mark Zuckerberg
0:07:26 who created a business from nothing,
0:07:27 then you have a very different view of the world.
0:07:31 And it’s not like, okay, how do I optimize the business
0:07:32 that I’m in?
0:07:33 It’s like, well, how do I get another business
0:07:34 that’s like Facebook?
0:07:36 That’s more the way you think about it.
0:07:37 – The other thing is the fact that Christiansen
0:07:38 was able to articulate this in a theory
0:07:40 that’s so clear and put in the book is,
0:07:43 I think that like the best professional CEOs
0:07:45 in the tech industry today, like now understand this
0:07:46 in a way that maybe their predecessors
0:07:48 10 or 20 years ago didn’t understand it.
0:07:49 So I’ll just give you two examples
0:07:51 of people I work with, John Donahoe at eBay.
0:07:53 Like when mobile came along, you know,
0:07:55 sort of classical professional CEOs,
0:07:56 when mobile comes along, you know, would look at it
0:07:58 and say, well, I’ve got this great business on the web.
0:08:01 If I move to mobile, it may or may not work as well.
0:08:03 And so maybe I don’t want to try to make the move.
0:08:05 Maybe I want to stay on the web and reinforce the web
0:08:07 and like not take the risk of quote disrupting myself
0:08:09 by making the jump to mobile.
0:08:11 But since John understands disruption theory
0:08:13 and it’s been like articulated and explained
0:08:15 in a way that makes sense, you know,
0:08:17 he was able to be based on a phenomenally successful job.
0:08:19 He went full throttle into mobile
0:08:21 and they made the jump and they’ve done it very well.
0:08:23 Meg Whitby doing the same thing with this.
0:08:25 I just, one example is this project Moonshot
0:08:27 which is these cartridge based servers.
0:08:28 – At HP, right?
0:08:31 – At HP that are a direct attack
0:08:32 on the existing blade server business.
0:08:33 And the blade server business at HP
0:08:35 is a very, very big and profitable business.
0:08:37 And HP is basically self disrupting
0:08:39 with this new kind of cartridge based server.
0:08:41 And so again, and when you have the discussion,
0:08:43 you know, HP board meeting and you have the discussion,
0:08:45 you’re like, okay, why are we taking the risk
0:08:47 of damaging this big existing profitable business
0:08:48 by doing this new thing?
0:08:50 The answer is because it’s the right thing to do
0:08:51 according to disruption theory.
0:08:54 Like it is, like there is a logical framework.
0:08:56 And again, think about what’s happening
0:08:58 which is something new is happening.
0:08:59 Progress is happening, right?
0:09:01 This is now the reason and the motivation
0:09:02 and the explanation and the justification
0:09:03 to be able to make progress.
0:09:06 So it’s an incredibly powerful positive thing.
0:09:09 – Let’s get to entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship.
0:09:11 You guys founded the firm.
0:09:15 In part, I’ve been told because you wished
0:09:18 you’d been told or helped in certain ways.
0:09:21 What’s one thing both of you wish you knew
0:09:25 or someone had told you as entrepreneurs?
0:09:28 – Well, that presumes we would have listened.
0:09:34 You know, there’s just so much that we did not know
0:09:36 going through it the first time.
0:09:37 And one of the great things
0:09:39 about the entrepreneurial experience
0:09:42 is it’s just an amazing learning curve
0:09:46 about everything from markets to organizational structures
0:09:48 to compensation to everything.
0:09:54 But probably one of the most challenging things
0:09:55 to learn while you’re out there
0:10:02 is kind of how macroeconomics impact markets
0:10:06 and particularly how they,
0:10:11 how private funding can change very, very rapidly.
0:10:14 You know, when we were, you know, particularly,
0:10:17 and this wasn’t as a harsh lesson at Netscape,
0:10:20 but at Opsware and LoudCloud,
0:10:23 it was like incredibly difficult for us
0:10:24 to go from the funding environment
0:10:28 where basically had the highest multiples
0:10:30 in the history of anything
0:10:32 to there was no money available, period.
0:10:33 I mean, like that was,
0:10:36 it was the most dramatic fall imaginable
0:10:38 from the highest of highs to the lowest of lows.
0:10:42 And, you know, to have the NASDAQ fall over 80%
0:10:46 and that not being, you know, that’s NASDAQ,
0:10:48 that’s not tech, tech fell 95%.
0:10:50 It’s just like not something you could even imagine
0:10:51 or get your head around.
0:10:55 So I wish, you know, like I wish we would have known that.
0:10:58 I wish, I don’t know if we would have believed anybody
0:10:59 if they had told us that,
0:11:03 but that would have probably made it a little less painful
0:11:05 if we had any idea how bad it could be.
0:11:07 – It would have made a worse book.
0:11:09 I’ll tell you that, that you wrote, but still.
0:11:10 – Yeah, yeah.
0:11:13 – On the other side of the table,
0:11:17 what do you want more or less from entrepreneurs,
0:11:19 more of or less of from entrepreneurs?
0:11:23 – Yeah, well, you know, it’s very different
0:11:25 across different businesses,
0:11:27 but like the one thing
0:11:30 that would probably be nice if there was less of
0:11:33 that’s pretty consistent is it’d be nice
0:11:36 if it wasn’t so important to entrepreneurs
0:11:40 what their peers valuations were.
0:11:44 Like that, that is probably the most meaningless thing
0:11:48 to focus your mind on as an entrepreneur imaginable.
0:11:50 It’s just like irrelevant.
0:11:53 – You don’t have anything else to base your value on, do you?
0:11:56 – No, no, no, that’s, you go ahead.
0:11:59 – Yeah, so it’s not actually,
0:12:02 you know, your company is your company,
0:12:03 their company is their company.
0:12:06 You’re looking at the price they got,
0:12:09 not any of the business metrics that they have
0:12:11 or like how the company is going.
0:12:13 So you’re not actually basing your valuation
0:12:15 on anything in that sense.
0:12:19 And there’s better data to be gotten for sure.
0:12:21 Like, you know, we have better data.
0:12:24 We can talk to them about all the kind of valuations
0:12:26 based on actual revenue and so forth,
0:12:28 as opposed to the person they went to school with
0:12:31 or the person they worked at their last company with.
0:12:33 And, but people get very wrapped around the axle on that
0:12:37 because there’s, you know, it’s kind of the thing
0:12:38 that Peter Thiel talks about,
0:12:40 whereas competition is actually like really destructive.
0:12:42 And that’s like the worst kind of competition
0:12:44 ’cause it’s competition that’s irrelevant
0:12:47 to anything in life other than, you know,
0:12:50 you can go tell your friend what valuation you got.
0:12:55 And I think that it causes bad, you know,
0:12:57 errors in judgment and delays in decisions
0:13:00 that need to be made quickly and things like that.
0:13:02 So, you know, it’s just,
0:13:05 it’s one of those things where humanity gets a better view.
0:13:10 And I wouldn’t like, less of that would be good.
0:13:13 – Mark, any, anything you would offer on that?
0:13:14 – Well, the thing that the great entrepreneurs
0:13:16 all have in common, we talk about this a lot,
0:13:18 but you just see it every day is the great entrepreneurs
0:13:20 all have amazing courage.
0:13:21 And so I would say we’re blessed
0:13:23 in that the entrepreneurs we work,
0:13:24 and we select for it.
0:13:25 I mean, we try very hard to select for it,
0:13:27 but the entrepreneurs we work with that are amazing.
0:13:28 One of the things they all have in common
0:13:29 is they’re incredibly courageous,
0:13:30 but which I mean, they don’t give up.
0:13:31 They don’t, they don’t quit.
0:13:33 Like they don’t, they don’t quit.
0:13:33 They don’t flinch.
0:13:34 They don’t get demoralized.
0:13:36 They don’t get, I mean, well, actually,
0:13:37 they may get demoralized or depressed,
0:13:39 but they show up to work the next day
0:13:41 and they work their way out of whatever problem they’re in.
0:13:43 And they just keep pounding and pounding
0:13:44 and pounding and pounding.
0:13:45 And I think there’s a little bit too much
0:13:48 in the Valley right now of the pivot
0:13:50 and the lean start, you know, the lean startup
0:13:51 and the, you know, the everything’s an experiment
0:13:54 and minimum viable product and failure is good
0:13:57 and kind of all of these excuses to be able to give up
0:13:59 when things aren’t going well.
0:14:02 And I think that the great entrepreneurs through history
0:14:04 have always been the opposite kind of personality
0:14:05 and all that they’ve always been.
0:14:06 “I’m gonna make this thing work
0:14:07 hell or high water no matter what.
0:14:09 I am going to knock my way, you know, headfirst
0:14:12 through any, you know, barrier that I run into.
0:14:13 I don’t care what people say about me.
0:14:15 I don’t care what kinds of problems I have.
0:14:18 I’m gonna figure this out and I’m not gonna give up.”
0:14:20 And so I would just say we love working with people
0:14:22 who have that personality type
0:14:23 and you can never have enough of them.
0:14:25 – Elon Musk comes to mind.
0:14:26 I mean, cars and space.
0:14:28 – Yeah, so to start, think about this,
0:14:30 to start a new electric car company.
0:14:32 And by the way, think about the last car company
0:14:33 started in the United States.
0:14:34 They literally made a movie about the catastrophe
0:14:36 that resulted, which is this movie, Tucker.
0:14:39 And so if you want like a story of like a horrible business.
0:14:40 – Which went better than DeLorean.
0:14:42 – Yes, well, actually, yeah, DeLorean.
0:14:43 Well, he had the added,
0:14:44 he had the cocaine smuggling business on the side,
0:14:47 which helped cover the, to free the expenses.
0:14:49 But, you know, car companies,
0:14:52 like all the car companies in the US that are successful
0:14:53 are like, you know, from the 1910s and 1920s.
0:14:55 And so to start a new car company
0:14:56 in the electric car category,
0:14:58 when all the electric cars had failed,
0:15:01 simultaneously to start the first new private rocketry company
0:15:04 in the United States in probably 40 years
0:15:05 to go straight up against the big boys,
0:15:07 to do those at the same time.
0:15:09 And then to go through the 2008 crash.
0:15:12 And he has actually recently opened up on this of like,
0:15:13 he almost lost both companies in 2008.
0:15:15 Like they’ve almost both vaporized.
0:15:17 And then a gut through both of those
0:15:18 and have both come out the other side,
0:15:21 like just like an excreaming successes is just a,
0:15:23 it’s a spectacular performance.
0:15:26 And a huge part of it is he didn’t give up.
0:15:28 – Ben, let’s touch on your book a little bit.
0:15:29 The hard thing about hard things.
0:15:31 One thing it got great reception,
0:15:34 but you’re like, well, yeah, that sounds good for you, Ben,
0:15:36 but that was your story.
0:15:38 How can I embrace that and make that my story?
0:15:41 But, you know, was there anything in the response
0:15:45 that you wish people had pushed you harder on?
0:15:48 – Well, the things that people pushed me on
0:15:49 actually annoyed me.
0:15:52 So I, it’s hard to say that I wish about that.
0:15:55 I mean, I think that to your point though,
0:16:00 it was my story and the reason for that,
0:16:02 I mean, there was a really specific reason for that,
0:16:04 which is building these companies
0:16:07 tends to be very dynamic and very situational.
0:16:10 And so a very frustrating thing
0:16:12 about management and advice in general,
0:16:15 and particularly, you know, both in books
0:16:18 and then things that you often get from board members
0:16:22 or kind of pattern matchers as it were,
0:16:23 is that they’re giving you advice
0:16:25 and it’s based on something.
0:16:28 And that advice and what it’s based on
0:16:30 may or may not be relevant to you.
0:16:31 And if you don’t know what it is,
0:16:33 it’s very difficult to interpret it.
0:16:35 And I always found that, you know,
0:16:37 management books would give like guidance
0:16:39 and you’d be like, well, okay,
0:16:41 is that what I should be doing?
0:16:44 But I have no idea where it came from.
0:16:45 And so it’s hard to say.
0:16:48 So a lot of putting my story in was just to say,
0:16:50 look, this is why I’m telling you this.
0:16:54 And like, if your situation is completely different
0:16:56 than this, then that might be the part of the book
0:16:59 that you ignore or like, at least,
0:17:01 or maybe you can map it on to what you’re doing.
0:17:03 But I think that without knowing
0:17:05 why somebody is telling you something,
0:17:09 it’s pretty difficult to get value out of it.
0:17:10 – And on the topic of the entrepreneurial journey,
0:17:11 we have to go see a pitch.
0:17:13 – All right, that’s what you guys get paid to do.
0:17:15 So Ben and Mark, thanks so much.
0:17:16 We will do this.
0:17:18 Well, it won’t do it in five years.
0:17:19 We’ll do it much sooner than that.
0:17:20 Thank you very much.
0:17:21 – Okay, thanks, Michael. – Thanks, Michael.
Sujeta a la cabeza de un ingeniero novato había una tablet PC de siete libras, una supuesta innovación que ilustra perfectamente la absurda y obstinada ineficiencia que afecta a la industria de la construcción. Esta conversación revela un campo atrapado entre el impresionante potencial digital y los hábitos analógicos profundamente arraigados. Mientras que el sofisticado Modelado de Información de Construcción (BIM) en 3D permite visualizar y coordinar cada tornillo en un espacio virtual, la realidad en el lugar de trabajo es a menudo un caos de planos en papel, capas burocráticas de aprobación y superintendentes que llevan cronogramas críticos solo en sus cabezas. El desafío central no es una falta de tecnología, sino una profunda desconexión: el proceso de diseño de front-end se ha vuelto increíblemente avanzado, pero el acto físico de construcción es menos productivo y más derrochador hoy que en la década de 1960.
Esta paradoja de productividad surge de un ecosistema fragmentado. Un solo proyecto involucra a decenas de miles de proveedores de materiales y docenas de contratistas especializados, todos operando con márgenes muy estrechos y poco incentivo para invertir en sistemas digitales unificados. La información queda atrapada en silos; una idea de ahorro de costos de un fontanero en el sitio podría necesitar navegar por las cadenas de aprobación de múltiples empresas, muriendo en la burocracia antes de ser implementada. El resultado es una industria que representa el 13% de la producción mundial, pero cuya productividad laboral se ha estancado e incluso ha disminuido, todo mientras el volumen de información—a veces 15,000 planos para un proyecto—ha explotado en una inundación ingobernable.
La esperanza reside en un cambio tecnológico de dos vertientes. Primero, hay un movimiento hacia la digitalización y el flujo directo de datos, utilizando tecnología en la nube y móvil para poner la información correcta directamente en las manos del trabajador que sostiene la herramienta. Esto habilita el segundo cambio: mayor automatización y prefabricación. Los robots se usan cada vez más en entornos fabriles para producir componentes de construcción como baños o muros cortina con precisión, que luego se colocan en el sitio, ahorrando semanas de mano de obra coordinada. Además, la realidad aumentada (AR) y las tecnologías de localización prometen finalmente cerrar la brecha entre el modelo digital y el mundo físico, proyectando instrucciones directamente en el lugar de trabajo. El objetivo final no es solo construir más rápido, sino más inteligente y ligero, utilizando materiales avanzados para reducir el peso y, en consecuencia, la energía requerida tanto para la construcción como para la operación a lo largo de la vida útil del edificio.
Perspectivas Sorpredentes
- La productividad ha disminuido a pesar de las herramientas avanzadas. La construcción es única por ser menos productiva y más propensa a retrasos y sobrecostos ahora que hace más de 60 años, incluso con el advenimiento de potentes software de modelado y planificación 3D.
- La industria de la construcción más robotizada está en Suiza. Debido a largos ciclos de hipotecas que permiten presupuestos de construcción más altos y un enfoque en la calidad, Suiza utiliza robótica significativamente en alrededor del 60% de sus proyectos, a menudo fabricando componentes en fábricas.
- La “aplicación estrella” para el modelado 3D avanzado es sorprendentemente mundana. El uso más valioso y extendido del complejo Modelado de Información de Construcción (BIM) no es el diseño futurista; es la tarea práctica de detección de interferencias para asegurar que las tuberías de fontanería no choquen con los ductos de HVAC dentro de una pared.
- La calidad de un edificio puede medirse por su peso. El principio de construir lo más ligero posible—usando compuestos avanzados o materiales como fibra de carbono—ahorra energía en transporte, ensamblaje y la carga estructural del edificio, convirtiéndolo en una métrica clave para la eficiencia y sostenibilidad.
- La estructura de la industria sofoca la innovación. Con las principales firmas empleando solo el 5% de los constructores, el mercado está dominado por pequeños contratistas regionales que operan con márgenes del 1-3%. Esto no deja margen financiero para invertir en nuevas tecnologías, incorporando el desperdicio y los retrasos al modelo económico.
Conclusiones Prácticas
- Prioriza digitalizar el flujo de información. Para cualquier profesional de la construcción, el primer paso hacia la eficiencia es trasladar datos críticos—planos, órdenes de cambio, cronogramas—desde el papel y ordenadores aislados a plataformas basadas en la nube accesibles en dispositivos móviles en el campo.
- Explora la prefabricación para elementos repetibles. Identifica componentes estandarizados como módulos de baño o paneles de pared que puedan fabricarse fuera del sitio en un entorno fabril controlado. Esto reduce el caos de coordinación en el sitio y puede comprimir significativamente los cronogramas del proyecto.
- Aplica el principio de materiales “más ligero es mejor”. Al evaluar materiales o diseños, considera el peso total como una heurística para el costo, velocidad e impacto ambiental. Los materiales más ligeros son más fáciles y baratos de transportar y ensamblar, reduciendo la huella de carbono.
- Usa herramientas de visualización para crear entendimiento compartido. Implementa maquetas de AR o VR para clientes y partes interesadas en lugar de construir prototipos físicos costosos. Esto permite una comunicación más clara de la intención de diseño y una iteración más rápida antes de que comience la construcción.
- Enfócate en innovaciones granulares, en el punto de uso. En lugar de esperar una transformación industrial de arriba hacia abajo, busca ganancias de productividad en herramientas detalladas—como carretillas inteligentes, carros de materiales en el punto de uso o tecnología portátil que guíe a los trabajadores—que resuelvan frustraciones específicas y cotidianas en el lugar de trabajo.
¿Y si Internet, a pesar de parecer un terreno maduro dominado por unos pocos gigantes, se encuentra en realidad solo en el primer cuarto de su revolución tecnológica de un siglo? Este es el marco optimista que sugiere el capitalista de riesgo Fred Wilson, contradiciendo la sensación de que los actuales titulares billonarios señalan el fin de una disrupción significativa. Su conversación con Chris Dixon explora si la actual ola de innovación en inteligencia artificial, la nube y los dispositivos móviles es simplemente “sostenible” para el statu quo —reforzando las estructuras de poder existentes— o si algo en el horizonte realmente reconfigurará el campo de juego.
Argumentan que gran parte de la innovación aclamada hoy en día, como la IA, paradójicamente podría fortalecer a las grandes empresas tecnológicas debido a sus ventajas en datos, en lugar de desmantelarlas. El cambio de la web a los móviles, por ejemplo, hizo que las mismas grandes empresas se adaptaran con éxito y emergieran más fuertes. Esto los lleva a una distinción crucial: la verdadera disrupción no ocurre solo con nueva tecnología, sino con un cambio fundamental en los modelos de negocio. Aquí, la criptomoneda y la cadena de bloques emergen como el principal candidato para crear ese cambio sísmico, ya que introducen un modelo basado en tokens que es ortogonal a las economías basadas en publicidad y suscripciones que actualmente dominan.
La discusión luego profundiza en las propiedades únicas del software en sí mismo. A diferencia de revoluciones tecnológicas anteriores centradas en hardware —como los automóviles o los televisores— el software es infinitamente maleable y actualizable, ofreciendo “muchos más grados de libertad”. Esta plasticidad sugiere que la infraestructura básica de Internet en sí misma aún puede evolucionar dramáticamente, no solo las aplicaciones construidas sobre ella. Los protocolos criptográficos representan esta próxima evolución potencial, ofreciendo una base más abierta y descentralizada donde usuarios, desarrolladores e inversores pueden alinearse a través de la propiedad compartida mediante tokens.
Dixon y Wilson vislumbran un futuro donde la criptografía permite aplicaciones completamente nuevas y nativas —desde organizaciones autónomas descentralizadas (DAO) hasta tokens no fungibles (NFT) para bienes digitales— que eran imposibles en el mundo previo a la cadena de bloques. Comparan el estado actual de la criptografía con Internet antes del ancho de banda o antes del iPhone: la infraestructura fundamental aún necesita escalar y madurar antes de que las aplicaciones principales puedan florecer. Sin embargo, creen que este cambio subyacente podría desbloquear órdenes de magnitud más valor económico que olas tecnológicas anteriores al trasladar más de las interacciones y activos del mundo a redes programables basadas en software.
Finalmente, reflexionan sobre la naturaleza cambiante del capital de riesgo y la financiación de startups, señalando que los tokens criptográficos están creando un nuevo mercado de capital global. Esto permite a los primeros usuarios y desarrolladores participar financieramente en las redes que ayudan a construir, una desviación radical de los modelos tradicionales donde el valor se acumulaba solo para los accionistas mucho después de la adopción de una plataforma.
Perspectivas Sorpresivas
- La IA como una fuerza sostenible: La conversación sugiere que la inteligencia artificial, contrariamente a la creencia popular, en realidad podría reforzar los monopolios de grandes empresas tecnológicas como Google y Facebook porque tienen la mayor cantidad de datos para alimentar y diferenciar sus sistemas de IA, haciendo más difícil la disrupción.
- El desplazamiento de empleos por software es sutil: La verdadera amenaza del software que toma trabajos no es un reemplazo robótico repentino, sino una ganancia gradual y incremental en eficiencia lograda a través de nuevas aplicaciones SaaS (como un mejor sistema de nómina) que reducen silenciosamente la necesidad de roles humanos con el tiempo.
- Las aplicaciones pueden impulsar la infraestructura: En la evolución de la criptografía, las aplicaciones convincentes (como juegos que utilizan NFT) podrían ser el catalizador que finalmente impulse a las redes subyacentes de cadena de bloques a desarrollar la escalabilidad y experiencia de usuario necesarias para la adopción masiva, revirtiendo el paradigma típico de infraestructura primero.
- El “sesgo de fuera de línea” en la crítica: Muchas críticas de activos digitales como Bitcoin se reducen a un sesgo inconsciente de que las cosas físicas (como el oro) son más “reales” y valiosas que las digitales, una perspectiva que podría cambiar a medida que maduren las generaciones nativas digitales.
- La criptomoneda alinea incentivos para evitar “batallas internas”: El modelo de token puede teóricamente prevenir las luchas viciosas que ocurren entre plataformas y sus desarrolladores complementarios (por ejemplo, Twitter y sus clientes de terceros) cuando el crecimiento se desacelera, al alinear a todas las partes desde el principio a través de la propiedad compartida.
Aspectos Prácticos
- Busca cambios en el modelo de negocio: Al evaluar nueva tecnología, no solo preguntes si es mejor. Pregunta si cambia el modelo de negocio fundamental. Es más probable que la disrupción provenga de un cambio en cómo se captura y distribuye el valor (como tokens frente a anuncios) que de una mejor versión de lo mismo.
- Explora los mecanismos de participación (staking): El concepto de “staking” —poner algo en juego— se vuelve sin esfuerzo gracias a los tokens criptográficos y puede ser una herramienta poderosa para construir confianza, asegurar redes e incentivar contribuciones de alta calidad, como se ve en proyectos de ciencia de datos o gobernanza.
- Piensa primero en digital para la escasez: Para creadores y desarrolladores, considera cómo la escasez digital programable (a través de NFT) puede crear nuevos modelos de negocio más allá de los medios replicables, como arte digital de edición limitada, coleccionables o incluso nuevas formas de lanzar trabajos creativos con el tiempo.
- Construye experiencias nativas criptográficas: Las aplicaciones más prometedoras en nuevas plataformas no son puertos directos de ideas antiguas (como hipotecas en una cadena de bloques), sino conceptos novedosos que solo podrían existir en el nuevo entorno, como las DAO o activos digitales transferibles entre juegos.
Aferrado à cabeça de um engenheiro iniciante estava um tablet PC de sete libras, uma suposta inovação que ilustra perfeitamente a absurda e teimosa ineficiência que assola a indústria da construção civil. Esta conversa revela um campo dividido entre um potencial digital de tirar o fôlego e hábitos analógicos profundamente arraigados. Enquanto o sofisticado Modelagem de Informação da Construção (BIM) 3D permite visualizar e coordenar cada parafuso num espaço virtual, a realidade no canteiro de obras é frequentemente uma confusão caótica de plantas em papel, camadas burocráticas de aprovação e supervisores que carregam cronogramas críticos apenas nas suas cabeças. O desafio central não é a falta de tecnologia, mas uma profunda desconexão: o processo de design tornou-se incrivelmente avançado, mas o ato físico de construir é menos produtivo e mais desperdiçador hoje do que era na década de 1960.
Este paradoxo de produtividade deriva de um ecossistema fragmentado. Um único projeto envolve dezenas de milhares de fornecedores de materiais e dezenas de empreiteiros especializados, todos operando com margens mínimas e pouco incentivo para investir em sistemas digitais unificados. A informação fica presa em compartimentos isolados; uma ideia de economia de custos de um encanador no local pode precisar navegar por várias cadeias de aprovação de empresas, morrendo na burocracia antes de ser implementada. O resultado é uma indústria que representa 13% do produto global mas viu sua produtividade do trabalho estagnar e até declinar, tudo enquanto o volume de informações — às vezes 15.000 plantas para um projeto — explodiu numa enxurrada incontrolável.
A esperança reside numa mudança tecnológica de duas frentes. Primeiro, há um movimento em direção à digitalização e fluxo direto de dados, usando tecnologia em nuvem e móvel para colocar a informação certa diretamente nas mãos do trabalhador que segura a ferramenta. Isto permite a segunda mudança: maior automação e pré-fabricação. Os robôs são cada vez mais usados em configurações de fábrica para produzir componentes de construção, como banheiros ou fachadas, com precisão, que são então colocados no local, economizando semanas de trabalho coordenado. Além disso, a realidade aumentada (RA) e tecnologias de localização prometem finalmente preencher a lacuna entre o modelo digital e o mundo físico, projetando instruções diretamente no canteiro de obras. O objetivo final não é apenas construir mais rápido, mas construir de forma mais inteligente e leve, usando materiais avançados para reduzir o peso e, consequentemente, a energia necessária tanto para a construção quanto para a operação vitalícia do edifício.
Insights Surpreendentes
- A produtividade diminuiu apesar das ferramentas avançadas. A construção civil é única por ser menos produtiva e mais propensa a atrasos e estouros de orçamento agora do que há mais de 60 anos, mesmo com o advento de software poderoso de modelagem e planejamento 3D.
- A indústria da construção mais robotizada está na Suíça. Devido a ciclos longos de hipotecas que permitem orçamentos de construção mais elevados e um foco na qualidade, a Suíça usa robótica significativamente em cerca de 60% dos seus projetos, frequentemente construindo componentes em fábricas.
- A “aplicação matadora” da modelagem 3D avançada é surpreendentemente mundana. O uso mais valioso e difundido da complexa Modelagem de Informação da Construção (BIM) não é o design futurista; é a tarefa prática de detecção de conflitos para garantir que tubulações hidráulicas não colidam com dutos de AVAC dentro de uma parede.
- A qualidade de um edifício pode ser medida pelo seu peso. O princípio de construir o mais leve possível — usando compósitos avançados ou materiais como fibra de carbono — economiza energia no transporte, montagem e na carga estrutural do edifício, tornando-se uma métrica-chave para eficiência e sustentabilidade.
- A estrutura da indústria sufoca a inovação. Com as principais empresas empregando apenas 5% dos construtores, o mercado é dominado por pequenos empreiteiros regionais operando com margens de 1-3%. Isto não deixa margem financeira para investir em novas tecnologias, incorporando desperdício e atrasos ao modelo económico.
Conclusões Práticas
- Priorize a digitalização do fluxo de informações. Para qualquer profissional da construção civil, o primeiro passo rumo à eficiência é mover dados críticos — plantas, ordens de alteração, cronogramas — do papel e de computadores isolados para plataformas baseadas em nuvem acessíveis em dispositivos móveis no campo.
- Explore a pré-fabricação para elementos repetíveis. Identifique componentes padronizados, como módulos de banheiro ou painéis de parede, que possam ser fabricados fora do local num ambiente controlado de fábrica. Isto reduz o caos de coordenação no local e pode comprimir significativamente os cronogramas do projeto.
- Aplique o princípio do material “quanto mais leve, melhor”. Ao avaliar materiais ou designs, considere o peso total como uma heurística para custo, velocidade e impacto ambiental. Materiais mais leves são mais fáceis e baratos de transportar e montar, reduzindo a pegada de carbono.
- Use ferramentas de visualização para criar compreensão compartilhada. Implemente maquetes de RA ou RV para clientes e partes interessadas em vez de construir protótipos físicos caros. Isto permite uma comunicação mais clara da intenção de design e uma iteração mais rápida antes do início da construção.
- Foque em inovações granulares, de uso pontual. Em vez de esperar por uma reformulação de cima para baixo da indústria, busque ganhos de produtividade em ferramentas de granulação fina — como carrinhos de mão inteligentes, carrinhos de ponto de uso para materiais ou tecnologia vestível que guia os trabalhadores — que resolvem frustrações específicas e diárias no canteiro de obras.
E se a internet, apesar de parecer um cenário maduro dominado por alguns gigantes, estiver realmente apenas no primeiro quarto de sua revolução tecnológica secular? Esta é a estrutura otimista que o capitalista de risco Fred Wilson sugere, contrariando a sensação de que as atuais empresas estabelecidas de trilhões de dólares sinalizam o fim de uma disrupção significativa. Sua conversa com Chris Dixon explora se a atual onda de inovação em IA, nuvem e mobilidade está apenas “sustentando” o status quo – reforçando estruturas de poder existentes – ou se algo no horizonte realmente reformulará o campo de jogo.
Eles argumentam que grande parte da inovação celebrada hoje, como a IA, pode paradoxalmente fortalecer as maiores empresas de tecnologia devido às suas vantagens em dados, em vez de desmantelá-las. A transição da web para o mobile, por exemplo, viu as mesmas grandes empresas se adaptarem com sucesso e emergirem mais fortes. Isso os leva a uma distinção crucial: a verdadeira disrupção acontece não apenas com uma nova tecnologia, mas com uma mudança fundamental nos modelos de negócio. Aqui, a criptomoeda e o blockchain surgem como os principais candidatos para criar essa mudança sísmica, pois introduzem um modelo baseado em tokens, ortogonal às economias baseadas em anúncios e assinaturas que atualmente dominam.
A discussão então se aprofunda nas propriedades únicas do próprio software. Ao contrário de revoluções tecnológicas anteriores centradas em hardware – como carros ou televisões – o software é infinitamente maleável e atualizável, oferecendo “muito mais graus de liberdade”. Essa plasticidade sugere que a própria infraestrutura central da internet ainda pode evoluir drasticamente, não apenas os aplicativos construídos sobre ela. Os protocolos de criptomoeda representam essa próxima evolução potencial, oferecendo uma base mais aberta e descentralizada onde usuários, desenvolvedores e investidores podem se alinhar através da propriedade compartilhada via tokens.
Dixon e Wilson imaginam um futuro onde a criptomoeda permite aplicativos totalmente novos e nativos – desde organizações autônomas descentralizadas (DAOs) até tokens não fungíveis (NFTs) para bens digitais – que eram impossíveis no mundo pré-blockchain. Eles comparam o estado atual da criptomoeda com a internet pré-banda larga ou pré-iPhone: a infraestrutura fundamental ainda precisa escalar e amadurecer antes que os aplicativos mainstream possam florescer. No entanto, eles acreditam que essa mudança subjacente poderia desbloquear ordens de magnitude a mais de valor econômico do que as ondas tecnológicas anteriores, ao mover mais das interações e ativos do mundo para redes programáveis baseadas em software.
Finalmente, eles refletem sobre a natureza cambiante do capital de risco e do financiamento de startups, observando que os tokens de criptomoeda estão criando um novo mercado de capital global. Isso permite que usuários e desenvolvedores iniciais participem financeiramente das redes que ajudam a construir, uma divergência radical dos modelos tradicionais, onde o valor era acumulado apenas para os acionistas muito depois da adoção de uma plataforma.
Insights Surpreendentes
- IA como uma Força Sustentadora: A conversa sugere que a inteligência artificial, ao contrário da crença popular, pode realmente reforçar os monopólios de grandes empresas de tecnologia como Google e Facebook, porque elas têm mais dados para alimentar e diferenciar seus sistemas de IA, dificultando a disrupção.
- A Substituição de Empregos pelo Software é Sutil: A verdadeira ameaça do software de tirar empregos não é uma substituição robótica súbita, mas um ganho de eficiência gradual e incremental alcançado por meio de novos aplicativos SaaS (como um melhor sistema de folha de pagamento) que reduzem silenciosamente a necessidade de funções humanas ao longo do tempo.
- Aplicativos Podem Impulsionar a Infraestrutura: Na evolução da criptomoeda, aplicativos convincentes (como jogos usando NFTs) podem ser o catalisador que finalmente empurra as redes blockchain subjacentes a desenvolver a escalabilidade e experiência do usuário necessárias para adoção em massa, revertendo o paradigma típico de infraestrutura primeiro.
- O “Viés Offline” na Crítica: Muitas críticas a ativos digitais como Bitcoin se resumem a um viés inconsciente de que coisas físicas (como ouro) são mais “reais” e valiosas do que as digitais, uma perspectiva que pode se inverter à medida que as gerações nativas digitais amadurecem.
- A Criptomoeda Alinha Incentivos para Evitar “Batalhas Internas”: O modelo de token pode teoricamente evitar as lutas viciosas que ocorrem entre plataformas e seus desenvolvedores complementares (por exemplo, Twitter e seus clientes de terceiros) quando o crescimento desacelera, alinhando todas as partes através da propriedade compartilhada desde o início.
A Prático
- Procure por Mudanças no Modelo de Negócio: Ao avaliar uma nova tecnologia, não pergunte apenas se é melhor. Pergunte se ela muda o modelo de negócio fundamental. A disrupção é mais provável de vir de uma mudança na forma como o valor é capturado e distribuído (como tokens vs. anúncios) do que de uma versão melhor da mesma coisa.
- Explore Mecanismos de “Staking”: O conceito de “staking” – colocar algo em jogo – é facilitado pelos tokens de criptomoeda e pode ser uma ferramenta poderosa para construir confiança, proteger redes e incentivar contribuições de alta qualidade, como visto em projetos para ciência de dados ou governança.
- Pense Digital-First para Escassez: Para criadores e desenvolvedores, considere como a escassez digital programável (via NFTs) pode criar novos modelos de negócio além da mídia replicável, como arte digital de edição limitada, colecionáveis ou até novas formas de lançar trabalho criativo ao longo do tempo.
- Construa Experiências Cripto-Nativas: Os aplicativos mais promissores em novas plataformas não são portagens diretas de ideias antigas (como hipotecas em uma blockchain), mas conceitos novos que só poderiam existir no novo ambiente, como DAOs ou ativos digitais transferíveis entre jogos.
with Marc Andreessen (@pmarca), Ben Horowitz (@bhorowitz), and Michael Copeland
Continuing our 10-year anniversary series since the founding of Andreessen Horowitz (aka ”a16z”), we’re resurfacing some of our previous episodes featuring Andreessen Horowitz founders Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz.
This episode was actually recorded in 2014, on the 5-year anniversary of the firm, and features Michael Copeland interviewing Ben and Marc about disruption theory, as well as key traits of entrepreneurs.
You can find other episodes in this series at a16z.com/10.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.