Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cpgeier 2605 days ago
How does Palantir actually make their money? I know probably a lot though government contracts, but I've never heard of them out side of the comp sci field until now.
2 comments

Short answer is that they don't - not a profit anyway.

Palantir was one of the very early Silicon Valley firms that were going around selling businesses the idea that "machine learning" and "artificial intelligence" would transform the way they work. A lot of them did buy it, and Palantir ended up with lots of funding (over $2 billion) and a ridiculous valuation ($41 billion at its peak, somewhere around $11 billion now - depending on who you ask).

They tried to build several iterations of one-size-fits-all software to ingest and process data and come up with visualizations and other analysis that they could sell to businesses, but they all failed.

Now, like 15 years later, they are just one of the hundreds of consulting companies that build custom solutions for businesses and other organizations to crunch their data. Their only differentiator is the fat government contracts they get because of Peter Thiel's connections.

Same as other consultancies and software companies. They get hired by other companies for ridiculously high daily wages and sell their platform for recurring fees. E.g. in a recruiting event they demonstrated how they setup their data analytics platform for a chemical plant to optimize production. Most of the work is transforming and structuring the data.
- high pressure sales tactics convince management its cheaper to "buy off the shelf" than build your own

- but we aren't selling you a finished product (didn't we mention that?), just a base framework that needs customization. Cue fly-in-fly-out consultants for exorbitant daily rates.

- to lower costs, why not send your own staff to our "university" for thousands of dollars for a 5 day class?

- hire said staff to become consultants after customer pays for their training. They don't appear out of thin air!

- when customer finally ditches product, blame them for lack of investment and use contacts to complain at highest levels of bureaucracy.

- rinse and repeat.

A tried and tested formula.

Palantir combines those techniques with one extra thing... Government.

Government is far less concerned about money-efficiency, and nobody working in government has a direct interest in profitability (like being a shareholder would). Hence those tactics work all-the-better.

Combine that with the fact that government can't go bankrupt. If some department blows through way more money than it should either it just doesn't get it's job done or it gets more money. Pretty painless compared to what happens to a company that blows through a bunch of money without delivering results.
I wonder what would happen if government departments were allowed to go bankrupt?

Simply say "this is your budget for the year, if you spend more, we'll fire every one of you and sell the office".

And then hire an entirely new team of non-overlapping staff next year.

Buying (a product) off the shelf is the right answer in many situations.

But not when you are not actually buying a product.

I would be interested on how they do that - do they drill down into the processes mixing efficiency, temperatures pressures etc
Yes, they gather data from all possible sensors. This data is aready there though. Their product just visualizes it and their consultants/forward deployed engineers (or w/e they are called) basically create pipelines and transformations to feed it into their visualization service.

I don't remember exactly, but one example improvement was that they detected temperature fluctuations inside the reaction tank (e.g. upper side hotter than bottom) during bad production batches.

This was detected by visualizing the temperature across the reaction time on good vs bad batches.

It's an interesting find, but personally I think the work they have to do to get there is super boring.

Cool at my first job I worked on some experiments that looked at mixing efficiency.