The title could not possibly be more wrong. I don't usually presume to speak for Peter Thiel, but pretty damned sure this is his viewpoint as well. Not just Silicon Valley but human civilization needs more people building real companies that generate large amounts of new economic value and push the borders of what we do with technology, because five-dollar iPhone apps and ad-supported blogs are not going to sustain human progress or the growth of the world economy.
There's something to be said for betting on many different people, but someone has to be willing to bet large amounts on the ones who get early traction; and if you want a billion dollars you should be making those bets on many people with big ideas, not little ones.
I think he is making a different point. It's not about one's willingness to bet on big ideas. It's recognizing that the path to the big ideas that win often start off by looking like something much smaller.
That said, I do agree the title would indicate a different take on the article.
I think the point of the article was that smaller innovations can eventually lead to the greater pushes "that generate large amounts of new economic value"
Coming up with those "big ideas" is an extremely tough thing to do. Often, people who get so enamored with the grand scheme of things engage in endless strategy with no prototype and nothing to show the world.
I will agree with you that one should not write off the bigger picture, but sometimes in order to get to the bigger picture you need to put the little pieces in place first
I think just because it is an "extremely tough thing to do" doesn't mean that people shouldn't do it. Sure, people who aren't capable of coming up with a brilliant idea shouldn't do it, but those that are exceptional are better off thinking about the next big idea than a small one.
I think its more of a blanket statement to save those who aren't "exceptional" but are just good-very good. If you're good-very good, then yeah stick to the smaller ideas instead of daydreaming about creating the next Microsoft, Apple, Google. Its tough to say, but some people are just better than others. Some people are great. The few that are "great", for the most part, are the ones who will create the next huge thing.
Were microsoft, apple, google thinking they had discovered the next ibm, or yahoo when they were working on their idea?
Or were they just working their idea as best they could? creating a revenue stream as quickly as possible and not worrying about trying to be bigger than the previous biggest.
I don't think any of the recent companies, google, twitter, facebook, thought that they had an idea that could create companies bigger than any previous ones. they were nothing but an idea that had potential and something people could understand and use in fun/new/helpful ways. And a team who could deliver that idea.
There's something to be said for betting on many different people, but someone has to be willing to bet large amounts on the ones who get early traction; and if you want a billion dollars you should be making those bets on many people with big ideas, not little ones.