Some startup competitions end not with slow attrition but with a single structural move. Elad Gil catalogs five categories: merging with your primary competitor, buying a key supplier, locking up a critical distribution deal, destroying an incumbent's cash cow, and deploying overwhelming capital. The historical examples are specific and instructive. Microsoft got IBM to distribute its OS in the early 1980s. Yahoo distributed Google before Google needed anyone. Uber chose not to merge with Lyft domestically but did merge its China operations with Didi and its Russia operations with Yandex, achieving regional dominance without a bruising domestic deal. TikTok bought traffic at scale early. Today's frontier LLM labs may already be in an oligopoly locked in by the requirement to raise tens of billions of dollars per training run.
The mechanics matter as much as the strategy. Private-to-private mergers between fierce competitors consistently collapse on three issues: post-merger ownership split, who runs the combined entity, and founder grudges accumulated during years of direct competition. Gil flags this explicitly, and it is worth reading his framing in full because most founders think about M&A as an exit, not as a competitive weapon used while both companies are still private and under regulatory radar.
Gil's core instruction is to brainstorm without constraint, including scenarios that seem unlikely, because the exercise forces clarity on M&A targets, partnership leverage, and key hires that normal roadmap planning never surfaces. The piece is short and taxonomic, but the value is in treating market structure as something you can attack deliberately, not just react to.
[READ ORIGINAL →]