Chainfeeds Summary:
You are most valuable when you do what others cannot.
Article source:
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/UF2ox3WEfehk3QDMCHqXZw
Article Author:
Zhang Peng
Opinion:
Zhang Peng: "The lack of its own model" is the most common criticism Manus receives in China. But from another perspective, from the standpoint of giants like Google and Microsoft, who possess powerful foundational models, Manus might actually be quite impressive: "Hey, this guy doesn't have a model, yet he can still create something like this! It gives my model another token consumption outlet." If the path of AI Agents ultimately only allows giants with their own models to play, then the game is indeed too narrow, nothing more than a "zero-sum game" between a few giants. But the truly large companies in this world didn't become giants simply because of their own "self-sufficient small-scale economy" of a single business or product; they built an ecosystem that includes "trade and division of labor." Some of their core capabilities drive ten or even a hundred times more "external" value than their own business, meaning that when they share value with others, they also gain greater benefits themselves. Therefore, the giants who have invested huge resources in developing their models also hope to see a thriving application layer ecosystem. If someone can use their model to solve more real-world problems, create richer application scenarios, and consume more tokens, then naturally, the more the merrier. In fact, the Manus team was already noticed by domestic giants when they were working on Monica.im. Their desire to explore general-purpose agents was likely known to these giants, and some had even made explicit acquisition offers. However, based on internal information from the GeekPark team to these domestic giants, they either wanted to acquire them early and make them their own, or they sought maximum control, aiming for a large share of the value now and in the future. This might need to change. In the AI era, large companies need to focus on what large companies are supposed to do, rather than immediately engaging in a zero-sum game with startups. It's essential to rethink the relationship with entrepreneurs with a more open "incremental mindset." If Manus's praise from industry giants is understandable based on "business logic," then why has this still-developing, cutting-edge product quickly achieved such a high ARR, and why has it received such a high valuation from overseas investors? Regardless of whether Manus's product is perfect enough today, or whether anyone can replicate it, it's undeniable that it gained a huge "first-mover advantage." Even when other relatively better, similar products emerge later, unless it's a "leapfrog" improvement, it will be difficult to replicate such a significant advantage. I think the "quantum tunneling effect" in quantum physics and the resulting "potential barrier change" can be well analogized to the answer to this question. Let's start with "quantum tunneling." Imagine a small ball trying to climb a mountain. According to classical physics, if the ball doesn't have enough kinetic energy, it can't climb over. But in the quantum world, particles have "wave-particle duality"—they are both a physical entity and a probability wave. Therefore, even with insufficient energy, it still has a certain probability of "tunneling" through, as if appearing out of thin air on the other side of the mountain. This seemingly counterintuitive phenomenon can precisely explain the breakthrough paths of many startups: they have limited resources and seem unable to shake the industry structure, but certain innovations allow them to "penetrate" barriers and achieve market breakthroughs.
Content source 
