Live data from Hacker News

What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

qz.com

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

#41
post #4

Either the author or Andreesen completely misunderstands or misrepresents the concept of network neutrality. Network neutrality doesn't mean users don't pay for the bandwidth they consume. It means they pay the same price for that bandwidth regardless of what it's used for.

He is dead wrong on his comment about how there are no incentives on the supply side to reduce bandwidth consumption.

Everyone pays for transit and it is a major cost for any website operator other than something nearly pure text like hacker-news. Even the Tier 1 networks pay each-other transit fees based on ongoing negotiation.

It seems it's very difficult to maintain awareness of where your knowledge is accurate and where it isn't the more success you accumulate as a more passive desiccation maker than in the trenches problem solver.

Re: What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

#42
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people were in that right place at the right time, but Andreesen made it happen. Then he made it happen again with Loudcloud/Opsware. Two billion dollar companies. There was a lot of hard work and intelligence behind his being in the right place at the right time.

"Loudcloud" Loudcloud was a failure. It morphed into opsware. So he was wrong about loudcloud (timing and otherwise). http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/marc-andreessens-lo... "After many adventures–in which the young company suffered many defeats, "

Morphing a 1999-founded 'failure' into a billion-dollar success, over the difficult period of the early 200X's, provides more support for the proposition that Andreesen is a persistent genius, than the proposition he's just been lucky.

Re: What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

#43
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A small percentage of people that make it big can duplicate that success. And Andreesen is one of them. He's one of the few entrepreneurs who has created two billion dollar companies, and now is running one of the most highly regarded venture capital operations. He's a mile a minute, super smart, and his accomplishments aren't so surprising after watching him speak: http://ecorner.stanford.edu/author/marc_andreessen

He's one of the few entrepreneurs who has created two billion dollar companies This is a highly rosy take on history.

America Online, the largest Internet access service, said today it will acquire Netscape Communications in a deal valued at $4.2 billion.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-218360.html

HP today announced that it has signed a definitive agreement to purchase Opsware Inc. (Nasdaq: OPSW), a market-leading data center automation software company, through a cash tender offer for $14.25 per share, or an enterprise value (net of existing cash and debt) of approximately $1.6 billion on a fully diluted basis.

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2007/070723xa.html

Re: What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

#44
Yay. Another "I got mine" article from an Internet celebrity.

He's got no idea what middle class means.

He's throwing out the usual conservative talking points about deregulation. (How'd that work for the banking system? In, say, 1929, 1989, 2007? Electricity in CA? The environment before 1970?)

He's of course in favor of manipulating IPO prices, because that's where he makes money, after all.

He's completely delusional about AirBnB.

And he's just a plain lunatic when he says he'd take eye cancer to have Glass.

It certainly makes you sit up and listen. And then shake your head sadly that you wasted time on the article.

Re: What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

#45

Seems to be suffering from "Success Bias" wherein because he was successful in one thing, he naturally thinks he is right about all things.

I would imagine lots of VC's end up feeling this way, because the people they interact with most are amazingly talented and smart startup founders - who are constantly kissing their ass and telling them everything they say is genius.

Don't get me wrong, I do think he is a genius and there is some gold in this article - but also some ridiculous statements.

Re: What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

#46

Say what you will about his actual opinions, I think it's refreshing to hear someone who is willing to say what he believes despite popular concurrence with his opinions. Very tired of the echo chamber in the tech community. As for the article, many of these seem like realistic perspectives, even if they discomfort the typical listener.

> it's refreshing to hear someone who is willing to say what he believes

> echo chamber in the tech community

Do you really believe that the "echo chamber" happens because people lie about their beliefs to fit in? I couldn't disagree more. I'm fairly certain the "echo chamber" happens because we share backgrounds, information sources, and inferential technique, leading us to share conclusions as well. It would be fair to call our community "too homogenous/narrow" but it's equally incorrect and insulting to imply that the majority viewpoint persists through popularity alone.

As for the article, you're correct that his perspectives are "realistic" in that I believe they are shared by many people in the investor class. However, they're completely self-serving and unaligned with the common good. In that sense I see his opinions as roughly morally equivalent to the cries of "redistribute all the wealth to eliminate poverty" that occur in different contexts.

For instance, he predicts that we will "run out of capacity" for our data hungry apps. SO BUILD MORE CAPACITY, DAMMIT. If that means redistributing spectrum, so be it. Match supply with demand. That's what markets are supposed to do. I'm sure investors would love to ride the bubble formed by artificially restricted supply but they do so at the cost of everyone else. It's sickening to see him pretend that he's forwarding a common interest by opposing net neutrality.

Ditto for his comments on the workforce.

None of his other opinions (1,5,6,7,8) seem terribly controversial so I've ignored them.

Re: What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

#47
post #43
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's one of the few entrepreneurs who has created two billion dollar companies This is a highly rosy take on history.

America Online, the largest Internet access service, said today it will acquire Netscape Communications in a deal valued at $4.2 billion. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-218360.html HP today announced that it has signed a definitive agreement to purchase Opsware Inc. (Nasdaq: OPSW), a market-leading data center automation software company, through a cash tender offer for $14.25 per share, or an enterprise value (net o…

While I can't disagree with the numbers, these were acquired at what could be considered the peak of a bubble, thus possibly way over-priced. Although, to say that he didn't create something awesome (both Opsware and Netscape) would be trivializing what he has done, and it isn't fair to him either. I think it would be fair to say he knows far more about business/what it takes to make a start-up than 99% of the world.

Re: What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

#49

Say what you will about his actual opinions, I think it's refreshing to hear someone who is willing to say what he believes despite popular concurrence with his opinions. Very tired of the echo chamber in the tech community. As for the article, many of these seem like realistic perspectives, even if they discomfort the typical listener.

> it's refreshing to hear someone who is willing to say what he believes > echo chamber in the tech community Do you really believe that the "echo chamber" happens because people lie about their beliefs to fit in? I couldn't disagree more. I'm fairly certain the "echo chamber" happens because we share backgrounds, information sources, and inferential technique, leading us to share conclusions as well. It would be fai…

>Do you really believe that the "echo chamber" happens because people lie about their beliefs to fit in?

I don't believe most people actively lie about their opinions, though I'm sure it happens and probably more often than one would want to admit. I think it's more just a classic case of groupthink; people just adopt the opinion of the group for the social benefit, more or less subconsciously.

More important than simply having an unpopular opinion is the willingness to express it when asked, even if it's not going to result in praise or accolades from the group's (explicitly or implicity) chosen "thought leaders". Such a thing encourages independent analysis and challenges the authority of said "thought leaders", which is healthy in most contexts.

It's especially important to do this in tech; since many of us seem to lack basic social skills, the cost of expressing a thing at odds with the group's position are disproportionately severe, and combined with the technical perspective of most in the field, groupthink pervades our sector particularly deeply, and the consequences of opposing one's technical religious positions are particularly harsh.

While it's pretty obvious that Andreesen's opinions are informed by his personal perspective as a wealthy dude, I don't think we should allow that to unfairly bias our reception. We're obviously not going to volunteer to have the phone company charge us $500/mo, but it doesn't mean that he's wrong about the basic principle of metered data or the availability of supply.

While you see an "artificially restricted supply", Andreesen sees "artificially curtailed demand" (as far as supplydemand applies to pricing) by heavy dependence on cheap offshored labor and the political impossibility of bringing that labor front and center (i.e., on-shoring it). I think this is a viewpoint worthy of consideration even if we don't like its implications, which are basically that things should cost much more than they do now.

Re: What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

#50
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The telcos want to charge Youtube (and others) more money for a faster connection to me, but I already paid for my connection to be fast. Those aren't Youtube's bits coming to me over the wire though, they are mine. I paid for them, both in money to the telco for my connection through them, and to Youtube with my attention to their ads.

Well, but other subscribers paid as much as you but may not be using Youtube as heavily. When they do use Youtube, they want that fast connection, but in aggregate they use less capacity because they are less frequent users. Charging Youtube is one way to account for this difference in usage. Charging consumers based on aggregate usage (like mobile carriers now do) would be another way.

so all you are saying is that some people pay for (N gigabytes per month) and actually use N, while others pay for the same plan but only use a fraction of N?
Post reply on HN