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

A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

frankzliu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 150 posts

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#111

Post by bloak »

StressedDev wrote: post #109
xmprt wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's only so much money you can make off of banner ads and at a certain point native advertisements are way more lucrative. I wonder how they get around disclosure requirements but I guess it's probably because the articles are never directly funded but there's some other form of compensation in the backend. Tom Scott made an interesting video about internet advertising regulations a while back. [1] [1]: https://w…

What is native advertising?

I wasn't familiar with the term, either, but it's in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_advertising

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#112

Post by squokko »

zug_zug wrote: post #42
gen220 wrote: post #14

Most "news" in the tech industry is funded by VCs, if you follow the money. It's not a terrible fact, but it's one to be aware of. All the `"X Technology" [that Y VC firm has recently raised $4Bn of capital to chase, cough cough] has massive potential to upend [big industry], here's why` articles are compensated-for boosterism. There's still signal in there, although it's mostly in the meta-facts of what they choose…

I'm about as interested in Andreesan's take on company's they own/copmete-with as I am in Zuck's take on apple vision pro.

Zuck's take on the Apple Vision Pro is mostly aligned with my own (disinterested) take, having tried both the Quest 3 and Apple Vision Pro.

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#113

Post by klabb3 »

dools wrote: post #36
threeseed wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The manifesto is hosted on the main a16z website. So the obvious assumption is that Ben and the other leadership is supportive of it.

It's also signed Marc Andreesen: https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/ Like he's the author of the post, at the top of the page.

This strengthens my theory that VC vocabulary consists almost exclusively of other people’s hot takes. I know only of two other groups of people who speak primarily in quotes: religious fundamentalists and teenagers during a brief fan-frenzy of some pop culture icon (eg Nirvana).

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#114

Post by maigret »

winter-day wrote: post #44

Most things in america are paid ads in disguise: these posts, blogs by mckinsey/bcg/big 4 accounting firms, news is often a paid ad/agenda in disguise. You're honestly better off spending time with your family and developing a small hobby. ~ musings from a late 30s guy

You should read The Information Diet. Mostly agreeing with what you say but coming to a different conclusion of where to find better information.

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#115

Post by chaostheory »

gen220 wrote: post #14

Most "news" in the tech industry is funded by VCs, if you follow the money. It's not a terrible fact, but it's one to be aware of. All the `"X Technology" [that Y VC firm has recently raised $4Bn of capital to chase, cough cough] has massive potential to upend [big industry], here's why` articles are compensated-for boosterism. There's still signal in there, although it's mostly in the meta-facts of what they choose…

It extends beyond the tech industry.

https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#116

Post by juitpykyk »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #73
henry2023 wrote: post #5

Not all of them are marketing. Some of them expose his belief system. After “The Techno-Optimist Manifesto” it’s very hard for me to take him seriously again.

About four years ago Andreesen published this: https://a16z.com/its-time-to-build/ They were and remain big crypto investors and it's pretty weird that the essay doesn't acknowledge how much talent and money crypto sucked up. He asks where the supersonic aircraft are and - ignoring that they have awful externalities - there is actually a supersonic jet startup. A16Z hasn't invested in Boom, though, near as I can tell…

Never forget the video where Marc was asked what is Web3 and he spent 5 minutes talking gibberish nonsense.

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#117

Post by corimaith »

defrost wrote: post #72
bkirkby wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how totalitarian? you have free markets (which the manifesto supports) or planned economies and planned economies are where totalitarianism works.

Is the US as it operates today a free market (how free?) or a weighted control economy where the larger players have a greater weight of control of media and the political landscape via owned outlets and subsidised senators? Do small players in the US economy have equal access to the market, or are they overshadowed by near oligarchies? Are you always so bicameral?

How would your "ideal" market then look like? I'm not getting what it "means" for small players to have equal access to the market than large players, of course greater resources will lend itself to greater reach.

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#118

Post by dgellow »

zug_zug wrote: post #42
gen220 wrote: post #14

Most "news" in the tech industry is funded by VCs, if you follow the money. It's not a terrible fact, but it's one to be aware of. All the `"X Technology" [that Y VC firm has recently raised $4Bn of capital to chase, cough cough] has massive potential to upend [big industry], here's why` articles are compensated-for boosterism. There's still signal in there, although it's mostly in the meta-facts of what they choose…

I'm about as interested in Andreesan's take on company's they own/copmete-with as I am in Zuck's take on apple vision pro.

Zuckerberg’s take on Vision Pro was pretty interesting

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#119

Post by em500 »

cheeseface wrote: post #76
personjerry wrote: post #27

Highly related: https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Thanks for sharing! A great read indeed.

The last part

    "Online, the answer tends to be a lot simpler. Most people who publish online write what they write for the simple reason that they want to. You can't see the fingerprints of PR firms all over the articles, as you can in so many print publications-- which is one of the reasons, though they may not consciously realize it, that readers trust bloggers more than Business Week."
is very dated though. Nowadays pretty much anything on Medium or Substack should probably be treated as ads or personal branding by default.

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#120

Post by strken »

gen220 wrote: post #14

Most "news" in the tech industry is funded by VCs, if you follow the money. It's not a terrible fact, but it's one to be aware of. All the `"X Technology" [that Y VC firm has recently raised $4Bn of capital to chase, cough cough] has massive potential to upend [big industry], here's why` articles are compensated-for boosterism. There's still signal in there, although it's mostly in the meta-facts of what they choose…

This becomes very obvious when you turn up to a conference and half the talks are by developer advocates running you through their product.
Post reply on HN