Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 79 posts

Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants

#21

Post by sirkneeland »

TuringTest wrote: post #14
sbank wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uber and Airbnb's disregard for regulation That's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Why, you don't think that having a body requiring minimum quality standards and opposing monopolies may be a good thing for consumers and workers?

I think the problem is when the regulatory body forms an unhealthy relationship with the companies that end up becoming monopolies (regulatory capture, good old fashioned corruption, revolving doors between the two, erc) and discourage new entrants.

It's a balance. It's hard.

Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants

#22

Post by vmateixeira »

anexprogrammer wrote: post #8
lmitchell wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love Hacker News, but my least favourite thing about it all is how we glorify 'startups'. It's honestly just a really weird business model, that seems like it's bound to inspire things like the recent Zenefits scandal, Uber and Airbnb's disregard for regulation, etc. etc. etc. I dunno... like this story implies, it just seems totally ass-backwards to focus on growth before you're profitable, and pretty unhealthy to…

I've started to prefer (including by using it to influence where I spend money) companies that grow the old fashioned way: Make some money and use it to make a little more. Or heaven forbid, were bootstrapped. Why? Seems from experience to be far less likely to produce an "Our Incredible Journey" message. I don't want to sign up for a service, love it, find it useful and be told GTFO after 2 years, ps Google bought u…

Nice comment, you seem to address few of my thoughts on bad products, longevity and customer support.

I am a bit concerned though companies don't care about the customer and customer support any more... I wonder if they are counting on peoples laziness on searching and moving to an alternative product/service or is it as simple as there are no alternatives with different policies?

Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants

#23

Post by throweway »

sirkneeland wrote: post #19
tempestn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then if you do disable adblock, it's difficult to read the article because there's a never-ending stream of animated big macs and bank ads and crap pasted beside it, helpfully fixed position so you don't accidentally scroll it off the screen. I say as someone who makes his living largely from ads, if you have to force someone to view your ads, they're not going to click on them anyway ! What's the point? All you'…

If they're paid by CPI, do they need you to click on them?

Yes! Advertisers do track roi and won't keep burning dosh.

Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants

#24

Post by throweway »

mixedCase wrote: post #15
thanatropism wrote: post #10

This site first lets me read the article above the fold and then ambushes me with a "disable ad blocking or pay" screen. So I disable Adblocker and get the same message again. Fuck you, I'm not diabling Ghostery and letting you get to my social media information. The anti-adblocking movement is going too far.

No issues here using uBlock with Adblock Warning Removal List, Anti-Adblock Killer, EasyList, Peter Lowe's list, EasyPrivacy and Fanboy's Enhanced Tracking List enabled.

Im surpised you can see your browser with all that blockification

Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants

#25

Post by vonklaus »

TuringTest wrote: post #13
rosser wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish companies would concentrate on providing value to their customers. That's just it, though. "Customers" are just another measure of your value to the people to whom you're actually beholden: investors. As long as you're providing value (perceived or actual) to them, you're winning this game. Ideally, that involves providing value to customers, as well, but it's demonstrably not necessary.

Isn't that way of thinking exactly what led to the dotcom bubble?

It isn't clear what the above comment actually means by"customers". If they are talking about perceived value to a customer who is the advertiser, and they are selling them your value, I sort of follow the point.

In whatever case, you are correct if you are insinuating that the perceived v. Actual value delta is dubious in that it usually doesn't taper off. Once things get way out of whack the correction can be over night

Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants

#26

Post by xg15 »

lmitchell wrote: post #3
windlep wrote: post #2

It will be interesting to see if this one takes off more than a similar one that launched about a decade ago now... http://techcrunch.com/2007/11/15/social-networking-platform-... CrowdVine also let people setup custom white-label social networks, though I suppose its founder didn't have as neat of a background story as a Ning founder. It's probably a nice business model, but not a "startup" by PG's standards, since…

I love Hacker News, but my least favourite thing about it all is how we glorify 'startups'. It's honestly just a really weird business model, that seems like it's bound to inspire things like the recent Zenefits scandal, Uber and Airbnb's disregard for regulation, etc. etc. etc. I dunno... like this story implies, it just seems totally ass-backwards to focus on growth before you're profitable, and pretty unhealthy to…

> I love Hacker News, but my least favourite thing about it all is how we glorify 'startups'.

Considering who runs HN, I'd be more surprised if there were no glorification - or at least very positive attidude - of startups.

Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants

#27

Post by TuringTest »

sirkneeland wrote: post #21
TuringTest wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why, you don't think that having a body requiring minimum quality standards and opposing monopolies may be a good thing for consumers and workers?

I think the problem is when the regulatory body forms an unhealthy relationship with the companies that end up becoming monopolies (regulatory capture, good old fashioned corruption, revolving doors between the two, erc) and discourage new entrants. It's a balance. It's hard.

Yeah, but then people should not be disregarding regulation, they should be asking for the right kind.

Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants

#28

Post by jakobegger »

thanatropism wrote: post #10

This site first lets me read the article above the fold and then ambushes me with a "disable ad blocking or pay" screen. So I disable Adblocker and get the same message again. Fuck you, I'm not diabling Ghostery and letting you get to my social media information. The anti-adblocking movement is going too far.

I didn't even bother trying to disable my ad blocker, I just closed the tab.

I don't want to look at websites with ads. If the only way to view a website is with ads, I'd rather not view the website at all.

Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants

#29

Post by ianlevesque »

jakobegger wrote: post #28
thanatropism wrote: post #10

This site first lets me read the article above the fold and then ambushes me with a "disable ad blocking or pay" screen. So I disable Adblocker and get the same message again. Fuck you, I'm not diabling Ghostery and letting you get to my social media information. The anti-adblocking movement is going too far.

I didn't even bother trying to disable my ad blocker, I just closed the tab. I don't want to look at websites with ads. If the only way to view a website is with ads, I'd rather not view the website at all.

And you didn't miss anything. A useless fluff piece promoting their social network builder.

Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants

#30

Post by eveningcoffee »

thanatropism wrote: post #10

This site first lets me read the article above the fold and then ambushes me with a "disable ad blocking or pay" screen. So I disable Adblocker and get the same message again. Fuck you, I'm not diabling Ghostery and letting you get to my social media information. The anti-adblocking movement is going too far.

$1 per week is not acceptable amount for accessing random Wired content (that would be $52 a year). Perhpas $0.1 a week, or even $0.01 per week.

Or small amount per view (for example $0.01 or even lower, much lower amount), but, the big but, this would considerably put peoples privacy into risk and this would contradict the use case of many ad block users.

So here is the deal Wired - you implement an anonymous payment network and you stop sending data to Google, Facebook and others, or people would just stop visiting your site. Well, this is my prediction and time will tell how much truth is there in it.

Post reply on HN