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

131–140 of 150 posts

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#131

Post by kevinmchugh »

andsoitis wrote: post #127
kevinmchugh wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> So why is so much of what Andreesen wants from the future not what they've invested in? You still want to invest in a particular company or people who you believe will make you tons of money. Just because someone is active directionally in what you believe will be the future does not necessarily mean you should put your money with them.

This makes sense as an answer but seems like an incredible indictment of venture capitalism, right? If they can't bring about a better, safer, healthier, science fiction future because it's less profitable than crypto, who can? If that essay had been a mea culpa, I'd like it a lot more

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#132

Post by squigz »

juitpykyk wrote: post #116
kevinmchugh wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So... explaining "Web3"?

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#133

Post by strken »

jrflowers wrote: post #70
margalabargala wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that "manifesto" just means "essay describing an opinion", I don't think your repetition of the word is the indictment you intended.

Exactly. Writing and publishing manifestos is a normal thing. Surely if you cannot link to your manifesto it is simply because you’ve yet to finish proofreading it

I am now considering what I would write in a manifesto. It wouldn't be a bad exercise, although sharing it with other people would lock me into a bunch of opinions that I might regret later.

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#134

Post by refulgentis »

mrcode007 wrote: post #50
dboreham wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah the "I could write that in a weekend and still go camping" 1000X developer.

He’s not wrong, you know ?

thank you for writing this. even with showing my work, was still downvoted below 1 on both comments. that flipped considerably after your comment.

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#136

Post by floatinglotus »

A16Z is a totally f-cktified VC. They made so much money with the pump and dump blockchain startups that they have completely lost their way.

Now you have complete moron GP/MD level people in echo chambers talking about technology and you cannot determine if it is a real technical discussion or they are simply targeting YOU as the next mark.

There is a HUGE difference between being successful by identifying trends and doing straight up rug-pulls. As a VC, their record is tainted and I would be suspicious of everything out of their mouths.

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#137

Post by friendzis »

xmprt wrote: post #92
pclmulqdq wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you compare the press coverage of "X VC-backed startup with product A" to "Y bootstrapped startup with product A," it's sort of evident how corrupt startup media actually is. Taking it at face value is not usually a good idea.

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…

"Traditional" media makes a bulk of their income from things they remain silent on.

Thypicaly, there are "majority advertisers". Their [combined] advertising spend is itself negotiating power, which typically includes PR fluff articles for agencies.

On top of that, PR agency gives instructions what to write and organizes utterly expensive ads from unrelated entities. Everytime you see an article that screams "that's an ad" or is disclosed as such, well... It is most likely payment for something else.

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#138

Post by Mikho »

Those who think that A16Z—and many other VCs per se—started their own media arms or at least blogs to "help industry" probably lived under a rock. There are just 3 reasons for a VC to invest in its media arm:

1. Help to create a deal-flow by writing about a current thing or their specialization in tech;

2. Promote its portfolio and pump it in every possible way for it to increase in value;

3. Promote its agendas and narratives like regulation/untiregulation.

So, yes. A16Z's media channels are a marketing tool.

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#139

Post by bkirkby »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #83
bkirkby wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the "control" of a "weighted control economy" is usually enforced through government (including those politicians you reference). so when we bring in more government then it's less free market. how close we are getting to a free market depends on who is in power and calling for reduced government intervention/regulations for businesses. as far as control of media, traditional media is becoming increasingly irrelevant…

> the "control" of a "weighted control economy" is usually enforced through government It is extremely common for large private firms to have weighted control in an economy. Sometimes their control is bolstered by government and sometimes it is hindered by it. But in a completely unregulated market it would be common for monopolies to pop up which could then control large sections of the economy. There simply is no s…

i see control and influence as being two separate things. mainly, control is forced by the controller while influence is granted from the influenced.

Re: A16Z blogs are just glorified marketing

#140

Post by bkirkby »

defrost wrote: post #89
bkirkby wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the "control" of a "weighted control economy" is usually enforced through government (including those politicians you reference). so when we bring in more government then it's less free market. how close we are getting to a free market depends on who is in power and calling for reduced government intervention/regulations for businesses. as far as control of media, traditional media is becoming increasingly irrelevant…

Bicameral was used by Jaynes in the sense of distinct seperate chambers of the mind, rather than political chambers; I can't say I agreed with his thesis but I always enjoyed his argument and the apropriation of the word. > i usually don't respond to distracting personal questions These were specific questions to tease out why you're presenting free market OR planned economies as the only choices- it smacked of certa…

i don't think anyone has a clear answer for "winning the argument" since definitions can be endlessly debated.

i think a more useful question is "what about the existing US economy is what makes it work/effective?" another useful question is "what about other economies make them less effective than the US economy?"

to answer the first question, the US economy works better when it's a freer market. magatte wade gives a convincing answer to the second question about africa when she points out it's generally very difficult to start a business in african countries.

i'm curious about what alternative you are interested in promoting and how. are you against free markets or do you have ideas on how to make markets more free?

Post reply on HN