Live data from Hacker News

Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

slate.com

91–100 of 172 posts

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#91
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone" This is by far the strangest thing I've ever heard.

How do you think revenue is generated? People give you money because they rather have your good/service than the money. Selling something to someone is benefitting them.

I look at plenty of companies that make billions of dollars yet benefits very few.

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#92
post #35

Despite the "change the world.. break the rules, etc." rhetoric, Silicon Valley couldn't be more different today. I find it hard to imagine a Google employee releasing an ad blocker[0], or Popcorn Time raising a Series A round, or startups shipping crypto that breaks the law, or a startup selling offensive security software (there's a reason that business has been pushed overseas) Today, startups that push the bounda…

I often read stuff like that. "Now you couldn't do it like they did it before". "You wouldn't be able to get away with the same jokes today." Or "You wouldn't be able to publish the same story today." I agree that time changes, but this is discarding the merits of those who did it then. Believe it or not, at that time it was not easy either. The people that did it had huge balls. Geeks were considered less that nothi…

"Geeks were considered less that nothing by society. The working world didn't trust them, believe in them or value them. They were basically rejected, as something annoying you had to have somewhere in your closet. My father actually told me in 2003 that he was disappointed I choose to work in such a boring field."

Exaggerating a bit? By a bit I mean a lot? I know that some geeks had hard childhood and were bullied, but way more others were not. Plenty of fathers were disappointed over children choosing various professions.

The way you people talk about it makes it sound as if all people who ever went into tech were bullied outcasts and that is simply not true.

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#93
post #35

Despite the "change the world.. break the rules, etc." rhetoric, Silicon Valley couldn't be more different today. I find it hard to imagine a Google employee releasing an ad blocker[0], or Popcorn Time raising a Series A round, or startups shipping crypto that breaks the law, or a startup selling offensive security software (there's a reason that business has been pushed overseas) Today, startups that push the bounda…

Well, the sort of irreverent crackpottery that made up life in the first dot com boom doesn't really fly right now.

If you've read the "Life in the Boy's Dorm" series by Nancy Hauge, the power dynamic was very different then. Sun's engineers refused to stop smoking pot for the visit of the President (or Vice President, I don't remember which) of the United States. They promptly put on a protest against The Man when asked to cut out the potheadery. Completely unreasonable, and downright hilarious in their adherence to their principles, as illegal as that may be. That's not an engineering thing but it's emblematic of the wild seat-of-your-pants approach that characterized the Gold Rush years.

It was inevitable it wouldn't last, though. The market learned to harness this unbridled power and direct it along the appropriate channels. And that combined with a greater spread of information means that non-standard actions will meet the weight of the community.

Sun's cannabis-powered engineers unwilling to give up their fuel source weren't a well known thing and that may have helped. The thing with "break the rules" mode is that everyone wants you to follow the rules. If everyone knows you're willfully breaking the rules (often just for the sake of it) you will be hammered down. The justifications come afterward, and they're always easily accessible. After all, you _are_ breaking the rules. The broader the reach of news, the more conformist the reported must be if they are to get away with their actions.

Cormack and Romero ghost shifted on computers at their daytime employer. Philippe Kahn started Borland while illegally in the United States. How much of this would you tolerate? Probably little. Probably neither of those actions.

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#94
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WinAmp is back. http://www.winamp.com/

It's been 'back' since... around 2013?

It's "back" as much as a zombie is "back". Yeah it works on the latest OS, but several features are broken.

Shoutcast still working is a little miracle. Though I am quite pleased with the Podcast Downloading feature w/ RSS. ( for example you can pull stuff from soundcloud )

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#95
post #35

Despite the "change the world.. break the rules, etc." rhetoric, Silicon Valley couldn't be more different today. I find it hard to imagine a Google employee releasing an ad blocker[0], or Popcorn Time raising a Series A round, or startups shipping crypto that breaks the law, or a startup selling offensive security software (there's a reason that business has been pushed overseas) Today, startups that push the bounda…

There is pushing the boundary on regulation as a political act and there is pushing the boundary so that you gain competitive advantage over companies that follow the law.

There is element of idealism in pushing for open crypto which is simply missing from what (for example) Uber is doing. Uber behavior is closer to what Microsoft used to be doing (not in power, just in ethical considerations) then to what crypto pushing projects were doing.

"Not to mention whatever is/was happening between SV and the intelligence agencies. It's pretty hard today to find projects or communities that have similar levels of energy and disregard for rules."

What is happening between SV and the intelligence agencies is oftentimes disregard of the rules. The only difference is that their disregard for rules does not benefit you - but lawbreaking being done for benefit of random strangers is rather exceptional thing.

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#96
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone", except when you're a part of regulatory capture (which AirBnB and Uber are not... yet).

Wikipedia benefits just about everybody with an internet connection and they sure don't make a billion dollars a year. The same could be said of open source devs who contribute to core projects running our internet.

You're talking about the opposite of what I said. My implication was

1 billion USD revenue => benefiting everybody

Yours is

Benefiting everybody => 1 billion USD revenue

I stand by the first but not by the second.

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#97
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone" This is by far the strangest thing I've ever heard.

How do you think revenue is generated? People give you money because they rather have your good/service than the money. Selling something to someone is benefitting them.

> Selling something to someone is benefitting them.

This is so myopically capitalist. It's like the argument for the free market distilled into a single sentence.

People would not just rather have the good or service than the money; people have no use for money. Money isn't a real thing. It's an artificial construct designed to allow us to exchange goods and services freely and to avoid loss.

Exchanging money has nothing to do with a benefit for the consumer. It is simply an exchange. There is no law of nature that says all exchange is fair, or a benefit. Quite often, the buyers are at a disadvantage. The entire idea of providing for a "need" precludes that someone can be taken advantage of.

If you sell me cancer drugs at $800 a bottle, it benefits me in that my cancer is staved off for a month. But then I have no more money, and can't buy the drugs, and die. Who did it really benefit?

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#98
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone", except when you're a part of regulatory capture (which AirBnB and Uber are not... yet).

I'm not sure I follow. I didn't explain my point well now that I've re-read it but the idea is more than the early maverick hacker projects felt more like just a project, something that was made to make sure everyone's lives got better. Uber, AirBnB, et. al., were business from the beginning. Their interests look to be making money, not providing a service or making it better. The focus isn't on making transportation…

Uber and AirBnB made a billion dollars by having a lot of satisfied customers. Being satisfied is a benefit. In other words, they benefited a lot of people.

The fact that I have to explain this makes me wonder...

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#99
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think revenue is generated? People give you money because they rather have your good/service than the money. Selling something to someone is benefitting them.

I look at plenty of companies that make billions of dollars yet benefits very few.

Do you have any examples where they did that purely on the market, without benefiting from regulatory capture?

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Audiogalaxy. Was always impressed how easy it was to find 320kbit versions or even some extremely rare songs...

Audiogalaxy was insanely effective at finding related music, due to, basically, human curation. I will always be grateful of having discovered lamb and goldfrapp through it.

Up-voted for dragging Lamb into an HN thread. ;)

Somehow appropriate for a decade old article about 90's vintage desktop MP3 software.

Now go and try to locate rips of episodes of AMP from MTV and complete your electronica collection.

Post reply on HN