Ehh...I get why tech people are suspect of Palantir but they're just disrupting other government contractors.
And from my limited experience working with the government, they absolutely need / want / rely on having companies hold their hand as they insist on doing things the hard, slow, and very custom way.
I feel like with this comment, the word "disrupting" has officially jumped shark and lost any and all meaning.
Palantir isn't "disrupting" government contractors. It is a government contractor, țhe old-fashioned kind, at that, and nothing more.
And people aren't suspect of Palantir. People dislike Palantir because its government contracts are shady and boring (they're all about efficiently tracking people), but they pretend to be a "saving the world with tech" startup with such enthusiasm you'd think they put the Kool-Aid into the water coolers.
Unsurprisingly, XXI century Stasi trying to look hip to recruit the tech talent give off nothing but "how do you do, fellow kids" kind of vibes.
Disclaimer: interviewed for Palantir. They thought I could be a fit. Must have not been using their own software to vet candidates back then.
To be honest, my experience of private enterprise is that they insist on doing things hard, slow and very custom. Almost every problem that exists is distinct enough that you can argue it doesn't fit the existing COTS software. It's sometimes necesary to build something yourself, but no where near as often as it is done.
If I remember correctly, John Ralston Saul made the point [0] that there is little observed difference in terms of the efficiency of decision making between large government and large corporations.
My personal experience is that large organisations and government are barely distinguishable. This is often excused in the name of "risk mitigation" - but in my experience it's really just that there are more snouts in the money trough, and that politics is more important than success. The close ties between government and the largest organisations also invite a similar culture.
The end result for both government and large enterprise is "hard, slow and very custom". (Of course, there are exceptions in both government and enterprise).
Some might do it under the belief that it makes them more flexible later on, but going with off the shelf stuff means it's easier to find people to create and migrate to a custom system when or if it's needed.
Disrupting? Their stock price has dropped by two thirds from its peak. They're probably looking to find a buyer at this point, such as IBM itself, while the leadership uses them as a stock-printing machine to enrich themselves.
Doesn’t this apply to most startups though? The core technical problems aren’t “hard” it’s that the industry involve can’t adapt due to inertia of entrenched companies.
>Karp has described himself as a socialist and a progressive, and said he voted for Hillary Clinton. In 2017, he was recorded during a Palantir company meeting claiming he turned down an invitation from President Trump, saying “I respect nothing about the dude.”
>He has said that technology companies like Palantir have an obligation to support the U.S. military. He has defended Palantir's contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the controversy over family separations, saying that while separations are "a really tough, complex, jarring moral issue," he favors "a fair but rigorous immigration policy". He has said the U.S. government should have a strong hand in tech regulation and that western countries should dominate AI research.
>Karp founded the London-based money management firm Caedmon Group.
>In 2004, along with Peter Thiel (who had been a classmate at Stanford) and others, he co-founded Palantir as CEO.
>He is described as a wellness fanatic who swims, skis cross country, practices Qigong meditation and martial arts, and keeps Tai Chi swords in his offices.
He'd make for a good Silicon Valley or Black Mirror character.
IBM, Oracle, Panatir....in a lot of cases these are pro services companies that custom build whatever is needed. LOTS of money in enterprise application development.
Consultancy + adaptable software is a decent business model. Unfortunately "adaptable software" for {insert industry} is a really hard target to architect right.
Especially when the majority of your tech headcount bills by the hour and gets paid to tell the customer "Yes."
That's how it is for just about any non-trivial business system. They're sold as complete systems, but there's still customization required for those systems to actually fit the business - and it's through offering consulting for those customizations that enterprise software vendors make the big bucks.
Not really assuming they are the prime contractor all the value is in the contracts and those are time limited before being re-competed lose all your contracts and your business value goes to zero because there is no IP like a Google or a Microsoft would have that is at the core of the value of the company.
Who thinks that? I've never heard this. People thought Watson was a lot more capable than it actually was just because of the Jeopardy PR stunt. People outside tech were buzzing about IBM and Watson. In my experience, people outside tech barely know Palantir exists.
