Live data from Hacker News

In which I stomp on some of our glorious “green shoots”

scottlocklin.wordpress.com

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: In which I stomp on some of our glorious “green shoots”

#21
post #2

Jesus what a nay-sayer. I wonder if in early 1999 he would have dismissed Google saying, "A website to search the Internet? Why? I can just go directly to what I want!". Sheesh.

Well, I would have preferred to upmod and comment on a better-written post that expressed that sentiment, but this works.

I mean, I agree with some of his specific critiques and I certainly agree with the feeling -- that new startups should focus more on things that create wealth, and not just the short-term "people will invest in this" kind that can vanish overnight. (Let's leave aside, for the moment, that this was in reaction to an article about the "Best" Entrepreneurs, not the companies with the brightest futures).

But, obviously, it takes a lot of foresight and a deep knowledge of the company in question to know whether or not it's doing that.

You mentioned Google. I'd use his own example, to illustrate A) the grandpa factor, and B) the foresight problem.

He uses the example of Bill Gates. "At 20, Bill Gates had started his own company and written ... A BASIC INTERPRETER."

Grandpa factor: lots of us write interpreters; some of us even mess around with interpreters written in asm on old-timey hardware; it wasn't even rare at the time. There were TONS of nerds who wrote and write interpreters, and I'd be very surprised if a majority of the companies he mentions didn't have someone on staff who'd climbed that particular molehill. So, Grandpa Factor -- the things that a lot of these startups are doing are probably as impressive as anything Gates started out doing. And I don't think even Gates would argue that it was easier to set your sights on "BASIC Interpreter" than "carbon nanotubes in my dorm room."

Second, foresight. Given that all startups look like crap in their early stage (and we're now shining the light of journalism into startups at TREMENDOUSLY early stages, 'just another hobbyist implementing a standard basic interpreter'), etc, how do you know which crap will turn out to be valuable?

Anyone could probably have told, from his education and personality, that Gates was an ambitious, intelligent young man. Okay. That's a long way from "The umpteenth young gun writing an interpreter for frikkin BASIC is going to take over the world of personal computing."

This article is noise. You need to know why Twitter is valuable before you could honestly critique Tumblr or any number of these other social/real-time media services. You need to know just how bad Gates, Google et al all seemed at first before you can have credibility when you trash a wide swath of early-stage companies as a total waste of time.

( I have reservations that are similar in nature to his own, actually -- but I know enough not to confidently assert that, say, Tumblr will leave no trace on the tech landscape. And, of course, this is a Best Young Entrepreneurs article, not at all a Best Companies Started By Young Entrepreneurs -- you can argue that there shouldn't be a difference, but then you're arguing that Business Week should have better taste, and who cares?)

Re: In which I stomp on some of our glorious “green shoots”

#22
post #5

entrepreneur == someone who makes money by running their own business entrepreneur != someone who invents something revolutionary The vast vast majority of the people in the world will never invent anything new. This is a list of people who found a less-than-common way of making money. This is NOT a list of people with revolutionary ideas.

example- zappos.com sells shoes- nothing revolutionary about that! Still grew to a great business

Re: In which I stomp on some of our glorious “green shoots”

#23
Your post is flawed because it assumes that this is some sort of an authoritative list that took into account all entrepreneurs across America. Untrue.

May be you should attack the magazine that created the list instead of the entrepreneurs? Better yet, create your anti-list of guys you think should be there but never will be because they are too busy doing too many important stuff. Simply cherry picking flaws in a bunch of businesses is very easy--even if I agree with many of your assessments about individual ones.

Re: In which I stomp on some of our glorious “green shoots”

#24
He forgot a few:

1. A guy who threw daddy's money at the ridiculous idea that people would buy books without seeing or touching them first.

2. Two college nerds who thought people would use a TV screen instead of the yellow pages.

3. Two more college nerds who thought people would come to their web-site solely for the purpose of going to someone else's website.

4. Another college nerd who thought people could be friends without actually being together.

5. Some people who thought other people wouldn't mind storing their electronic mail on someone else's computer.

6. Some guy pussy-whipped by his girlfriend to trade her beanie babies on the interwebs.

7. Some guys who thought people would be willing to send money over the internet.

8. A guy who built a place for people to give away their published writings for free.

9. A guy who thought people could meet their next SO on the computer in his apartment.

10. A guy who thought people could actually communicate something in only 140 characters.

Re: In which I stomp on some of our glorious “green shoots”

#25
post #5

entrepreneur == someone who makes money by running their own business entrepreneur != someone who invents something revolutionary The vast vast majority of the people in the world will never invent anything new. This is a list of people who found a less-than-common way of making money. This is NOT a list of people with revolutionary ideas.

This same sort of linguistic game was done to the word "professional", by encouraging customers to conflate the word with "skilled", etc. (Don't remodel your own house, have a "pro" do it!") Except, in this case, it's not being done to market a trade but rather to define an elite class.

The most amusing part of this, to me, is that there just wasn't enough nuance already built into a French word. That might be a first.

Re: In which I stomp on some of our glorious “green shoots”

#27
post #24

He forgot a few: 1. A guy who threw daddy's money at the ridiculous idea that people would buy books without seeing or touching them first. 2. Two college nerds who thought people would use a TV screen instead of the yellow pages. 3. Two more college nerds who thought people would come to their web-site solely for the purpose of going to someone else's website. 4. Another college nerd who thought people could be frie…

Yep, those are all grounds for interesting ideas that one could discuss over coffee for a good while. The entrepreneurs identified in the article that is being criticized however seem to have very bland businesses (coffee intern placement doesn't really capture the imagination).

Re: In which I stomp on some of our glorious “green shoots”

#28
post #23

Your post is flawed because it assumes that this is some sort of an authoritative list that took into account all entrepreneurs across America. Untrue. May be you should attack the magazine that created the list instead of the entrepreneurs? Better yet, create your anti-list of guys you think should be there but never will be because they are too busy doing too many important stuff. Simply cherry picking flaws in a b…

Yes, this critique suffers from a quite typical problem: Sample bias in the press. Some business plans require PR in order to work, so those are the businesses you'll hear about. The businesses that don't thrive on PR are effectively invisible.

I'm particularly amused by this guy's citation of Philo Farnsworth as the sort of entrepreneur we should all aspire to be. There are plenty of Philo Farnsworths in America today. You've just never heard of them. Just as nobody in America has heard of Philo Farnsworth, except for entrepreneurs who are looking for bedtime stories to tell their kids.

Farnsworth did his best work in obscurity, in a tiny startup consisting mostly of himself and his immediate family. He then managed to secure a patent, which enabled him to get a piece of the action when RCA turned his invention into a household word. If he had been a little less stubborn and independent RCA would have succeeded in buying him out completely; if he had been a little less of a romantic figure (the Idaho farmboy turned electronics genius!) only historians would know his name.

It's easy to meet people who are as smart and inventive as Farnsworth. They're designing graphics processors or creating MEMS devices or building robots or developing vaccines. They're designing the tiny components that make the iPhone possible. If you run into them on the street in Silicon Valley, they look just like everyone else. And none of them are famous, because they're not trying to be famous. Their business doesn't depend on that.

Re: In which I stomp on some of our glorious “green shoots”

#29
post #27
post #24

He forgot a few: 1. A guy who threw daddy's money at the ridiculous idea that people would buy books without seeing or touching them first. 2. Two college nerds who thought people would use a TV screen instead of the yellow pages. 3. Two more college nerds who thought people would come to their web-site solely for the purpose of going to someone else's website. 4. Another college nerd who thought people could be frie…

Yep, those are all grounds for interesting ideas that one could discuss over coffee for a good while. The entrepreneurs identified in the article that is being criticized however seem to have very bland businesses (coffee intern placement doesn't really capture the imagination).

Actually internships are quite eye-opening stuff when done at the right place. So i'd say the internship website was a brilliant idea.

Re: In which I stomp on some of our glorious “green shoots”

#30
post #24

He forgot a few: 1. A guy who threw daddy's money at the ridiculous idea that people would buy books without seeing or touching them first. 2. Two college nerds who thought people would use a TV screen instead of the yellow pages. 3. Two more college nerds who thought people would come to their web-site solely for the purpose of going to someone else's website. 4. Another college nerd who thought people could be frie…

pretty funny until i got to #6. your use of "pussy-whipped" in this case is demeaning to both the man and the woman, and didn't fit with the rest of the comment's tone.
Post reply on HN