Paul Graham Gets Vague when Boston needs analysis • Hacker News Board

Re: Paul Graham Gets Vague when Boston needs analysis

#11

Post by kansando » Wed, Oct 17, 2007, 2:23 PM UTC

edw519 wrote: post #10

kansando wrote: post #6

I think PG and this group are too focused on Web 2.0 companies. So all his talk of superiority of the valley ecosystem is probably right in the consumer-web space. Boston stills kicks ass for enterprise software and biotech.Unfortunately you can't build those with college dropouts.

Once again, I would caution anyone who draws a line in the sand between Web 2.0 and the enterprise. It won't be too long before that line is blurred forever. (Aside: Ask Bill Gates what can be built by a college dropout.)

All Enterprise companies need sales forces. In a post SOX environment, you can't just get adoption by setting up a viral chain. Then there is the large subset of enterprise world which is infrastructure and that will never look like Web 2.0.

As for Bill Gates, that is an old example. If you look at even the last 15 years, the most successful enterprise companies (VMWare, Siebel, SalesForce, ...) were founded by seasoned, college-educated founders.

Re: Paul Graham Gets Vague when Boston needs analysis

#12

Post by anamax » Wed, Oct 17, 2007, 3:12 PM UTC

natrius wrote: post #5

"I would like to caveat this section myself and ask the readers a question of even Paul himself should he notice this article, does the more aggressive investor demand a larger percentage of the business for the same amount of investment dollars offered by a less aggressive investor?" In Silicon Valley, you'll get more offers from investors for funding since the investors are more aggressive, and as a result, you're…

I think that "aggressive" is being misinterpreted. SV VCs have a greater tolerance for risk, at least technology risk.

It seems quite reasonable that riskier investments should have greater potential reward. (Otherwise, why take on the additional risk?)

Re: Paul Graham Gets Vague when Boston needs analysis

#13

Post by davidw » Wed, Oct 17, 2007, 3:26 PM UTC

kansando wrote: post #6

I think PG and this group are too focused on Web 2.0 companies. So all his talk of superiority of the valley ecosystem is probably right in the consumer-web space. Boston stills kicks ass for enterprise software and biotech.Unfortunately you can't build those with college dropouts.

What hacker wants to touch "enterprise" software with a 10 foot pole?

Beyond that, "enterprise" and "startup" - at least to my mind - don't have a large intersection. If I want something enterprisey, I want it from a big, established IBM type company who will be there 10 years from now, and still be interested in my business.

Re: Paul Graham Gets Vague when Boston needs analysis

#14

Post by ratsbane » Wed, Oct 17, 2007, 3:45 PM UTC

kansando wrote: post #8

rms wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you can

Do you have examples to back your assertion?

RMS is right. Most of the big enterprise packages were started by college graduates but that certainly doesn't make it a requirement. Most of the big computer companies were started by college graduates, too. And then there was Apple.

You can't be innovative by thinking that just because something hasn't been done a certain way before that it shouldn't be done that way.

Real innovation REQUIRES violating some generally-accepeted principle of how things should be done.

Real innovation is one thing that that the current crop of enterprise software is largely missing.

Re: Paul Graham Gets Vague when Boston needs analysis

#15

Post by nostrademons » Wed, Oct 17, 2007, 4:22 PM UTC

kansando wrote: post #6

I think PG and this group are too focused on Web 2.0 companies. So all his talk of superiority of the valley ecosystem is probably right in the consumer-web space. Boston stills kicks ass for enterprise software and biotech.Unfortunately you can't build those with college dropouts.

More people need to read Clayton Christensen's books. Today's commodity consumer webapp is tomorrow's robust enterprise software. Just ask Wang, Apollo, DEC, Stratus, or any of the other enterprise software companies that were based around Boston 20 years ago.

Re: Paul Graham Gets Vague when Boston needs analysis

#16

Post by kansando » Wed, Oct 17, 2007, 5:06 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #13

kansando wrote: post #6

I think PG and this group are too focused on Web 2.0 companies. So all his talk of superiority of the valley ecosystem is probably right in the consumer-web space. Boston stills kicks ass for enterprise software and biotech.Unfortunately you can't build those with college dropouts.

What hacker wants to touch "enterprise" software with a 10 foot pole? Beyond that, "enterprise" and "startup" - at least to my mind - don't have a large intersection. If I want something enterprisey, I want it from a big, established IBM type company who will be there 10 years from now, and still be interested in my business.

And you think the people who started VMWare, ITA software, Akamai & Ab Initio were dumb, stupid, second-rate hackers? Obviously by your definition these were never a startup because people would have bought stuff from IBM anyway.

Like a lot of other people in this group you are confusing web startups with startups.

Here is a list of Boston area Enterprise startups that went public this year: Airvana, Starent Networks, Bladelogic, Netezza, AcmePacket . They could not have done so without real customers and real revenue (not traffic, not unique visitors).

Re: Paul Graham Gets Vague when Boston needs analysis

#17

Post by kansando » Wed, Oct 17, 2007, 5:11 PM UTC

ratsbane wrote: post #14

kansando wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have examples to back your assertion?

RMS is right. Most of the big enterprise packages were started by college graduates but that certainly doesn't make it a requirement. Most of the big computer companies were started by college graduates, too. And then there was Apple. You can't be innovative by thinking that just because something hasn't been done a certain way before that it shouldn't be done that way. Real innovation REQUIRES violating some general…

"Real innovation is one thing that that the current crop of enterprise software is largely missing."

Based on what? You don't think virtualization is real innovation? Spend some time learning about Netezza, Endeca, ITA, BladeLogic, Scalent, VMWare... before making blanket statements that are blatantly inaccurate.

Re: Paul Graham Gets Vague when Boston needs analysis

#18

Post by rams » Wed, Oct 17, 2007, 5:29 PM UTC

kansando wrote: post #17

ratsbane wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RMS is right. Most of the big enterprise packages were started by college graduates but that certainly doesn't make it a requirement. Most of the big computer companies were started by college graduates, too. And then there was Apple. You can't be innovative by thinking that just because something hasn't been done a certain way before that it shouldn't be done that way. Real innovation REQUIRES violating some general…

"Real innovation is one thing that that the current crop of enterprise software is largely missing." Based on what? You don't think virtualization is real innovation? Spend some time learning about Netezza, Endeca, ITA, BladeLogic, Scalent, VMWare... before making blanket statements that are blatantly inaccurate.

Dude, give up. You are surrounded by "testosterone driven 20 somethings ?" ;-).

Re: Paul Graham Gets Vague when Boston needs analysis

#19

Post by edw519 » Wed, Oct 17, 2007, 5:48 PM UTC

kansando wrote: post #11

edw519 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again, I would caution anyone who draws a line in the sand between Web 2.0 and the enterprise. It won't be too long before that line is blurred forever. (Aside: Ask Bill Gates what can be built by a college dropout.)

All Enterprise companies need sales forces. In a post SOX environment, you can't just get adoption by setting up a viral chain. Then there is the large subset of enterprise world which is infrastructure and that will never look like Web 2.0. As for Bill Gates, that is an old example. If you look at even the last 15 years, the most successful enterprise companies (VMWare, Siebel, SalesForce, ...) were founded by seaso…

What is your definition of "enterprise"? If it's Fortune 500, then I agree with you.

If it's the other 7 million small businesses ($1 to $100 million annual revenue, many outside of SOX enforcement), then I disagree. These people have literally been dying for good software forever. They are already leapfrogging the enterprise software bandits and installing their own mission critical systems, many based on open source technology. They simply can't wait for or afford "enterprise" solutions. Their viral chain? Word of mouth, industry journals, chambers of commerce, tech groups, country clubs, lawyers, accountants,...

Just because there is a whole new "Web 2.0 space" doesn't mean that those who have been driving the economy for ages have disappeared. This sleeping giant needs to be fed and its providers probably stand to gain the most.

Enterprise + Web 2.0? You better believe it.

Re: Paul Graham Gets Vague when Boston needs analysis

#20

Post by davidw » Wed, Oct 17, 2007, 5:52 PM UTC

kansando wrote: post #16

davidw wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What hacker wants to touch "enterprise" software with a 10 foot pole? Beyond that, "enterprise" and "startup" - at least to my mind - don't have a large intersection. If I want something enterprisey, I want it from a big, established IBM type company who will be there 10 years from now, and still be interested in my business.

And you think the people who started VMWare, ITA software, Akamai & Ab Initio were dumb, stupid, second-rate hackers? Obviously by your definition these were never a startup because people would have bought stuff from IBM anyway. Like a lot of other people in this group you are confusing web startups with startups. Here is a list of Boston area Enterprise startups that went public this year: Airvana, Starent Networks…

I think we have slightly different concepts of what "enterprise" is, actually, which is ok, since it's hardly a term with a precise definition. I'd tend to think of companies like VMWare as something else, though. Enterprise to me means SAP, Oracle, IBM, and that kind of thing.

Do you think the people who run IBM or GE are stupid? Probably not... What they are not, however, is "hackers". That's a vague term too, so I guess debating it is meaningless, but please don't put words in my mouth with regards to "stupid people". There are plenty of smart people whose footsteps I wouldn't wish to tread.

As to why PG is focused on web companies, I think it's pretty natural, given his background and what YC does in terms of investment (15K doesn't get you a lot if you're building something capital intensive). Lots of us are also interested in this idea of startups becoming more widely possible, which also means we're interested, once again, in low capital requirements.

So, yeah, there's other stuff out there, but for most of us, the web is where the action is at.