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

The Problem With Marc Andreessen

blogs.reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#21

Post by ma2rten »

srconstantin wrote: post #19

You don't see something...Ponzi-scheme-ish about the industry? I may not be especially familiar with this, but it sounds like: 1. Man makes short-lived company that makes him rich quickly. 2. Man makes money investing in other short-lived companies that make their founders rich quickly. 3. Successful founders grow up to make money investing in still other short-lived companies. Maybe I'm totally misinterpreting this,…

People seem to use the word Ponzi-scheme quite loosely these days, but this is not one. I don't know if this is news to you, but it is not a secret, that VCs do invest in companies under the premise that they get sold or they do an IPO (sell to the public). This is because they need to get a return on their investment.

However, these companies get bought by bigger companies, who drive some real value from buying them. If the big company screws it up or decides to integrate the product in their own, that does not make it a Ponzi-scheme.

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#22

Post by cube13 »

ma2rten wrote: post #18
ardillamorris wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the point of view that public markets are accesible to everyone - the secondary market is like a grey market: there's limited information, likelihood of anonymity and weak controls. With that in mind, I would call it "shadowy". Also, I think making money on timing the market is not a bad thing. To each his own. However, timing the market does not create value. It is merely displacing value or what they call a ze…

Actually I think it is quite normal for almost any kind of transaction not to get broadcasting publicity. I fail to see how that is shadowy . Anyway, why would staring Netscape not be enough value already? After all he himself wrote the Mosic browser that became the basis for all of today's browser. I think very few people have produced more "value" in their lives. I also don't like the tone of voice of the article.…

>Anyway, why would staring Netscape not be enough value already? After all he himself wrote the Mosic browser that became the basis for all of today's browser. I think very few people have produced more "value" in their lives.

No, he was a part of the team that wrote the Mosaic browser. Eric Bina was the other major contributor. Mosaic was not a solo project like the first version of Linux. It was a team effort.

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#23

Post by ma2rten »

unreal37 wrote: post #20
blader wrote: post #13

I don't understand. The man created the web browser, built multiple billion dollar companies, angel invested and sits on the board of Facebook, and is now one of the most well known VCs in the world - and this is saying what - that he's not as good as Felix thinks he could be? What the hell has Felix Salmon ever done? I'm seeing more and more of this: pundits and armchair entrepreneurs online who just can't help but…

I think there is a point in the original article that is perhaps overstated but nonetheless mainly true - Andreessen is being hailed as one of the great entrepreneurs of our time by Wired. But really, his main skill is building companies that don't make much money and selling them to other companies. He has never really created anything of long-term value. He's no Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.

And why is this a bad thing? I don't see why it makes a difference if the company continues to exist on it's own or as part of another company.

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#24

Post by srconstantin »

ma2rten wrote: post #21
srconstantin wrote: post #19

You don't see something...Ponzi-scheme-ish about the industry? I may not be especially familiar with this, but it sounds like: 1. Man makes short-lived company that makes him rich quickly. 2. Man makes money investing in other short-lived companies that make their founders rich quickly. 3. Successful founders grow up to make money investing in still other short-lived companies. Maybe I'm totally misinterpreting this,…

People seem to use the word Ponzi-scheme quite loosely these days, but this is not one. I don't know if this is news to you, but it is not a secret, that VCs do invest in companies under the premise that they get sold or they do an IPO (sell to the public). This is because they need to get a return on their investment. However, these companies get bought by bigger companies, who drive some real value from buying them…

I probably phrased it too strongly, but I'm legitimately confused. Something seems...unsettlingly short-term here. I shouldn't have called it a "Ponzi scheme." But perhaps "speculation."

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#25

Post by gaius »

ma2rten wrote: post #23
unreal37 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a point in the original article that is perhaps overstated but nonetheless mainly true - Andreessen is being hailed as one of the great entrepreneurs of our time by Wired. But really, his main skill is building companies that don't make much money and selling them to other companies. He has never really created anything of long-term value. He's no Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.

And why is this a bad thing? I don't see why it makes a difference if the company continues to exist on it's own or as part of another company.

Because it's a zero-sum game.

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#26

Post by smacktoward »

ggchappell wrote: post #17

As long as we're being accurate: > His single greatest achievement — the creation of the world’s first web browser, Mosaic — took place under the auspices of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois. All correct, except for "first". The world's first web browser was WorldWideWeb[1], written by Tim Berners-Lee. But I suppose it is true that Mosaic was the first browser that got…

If we want to really get pedantic, Mosaic was a "first" -- the first WWW browser to support embedding inline images in Web pages. Previous browsers were text-only; you could post images, but they could only be linked to, not displayed directly inside a page. That made the WWW too similar to Gopher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_%28protocol%29) to really break out in popularity. Mosaic's support for inline graphics is what caused the Web's first real wave of general interest outside academia.

More here: http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/04/0422mosaic-web-br...

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#27

Post by ReadEvalPost »

blader wrote: post #13

I don't understand. The man created the web browser, built multiple billion dollar companies, angel invested and sits on the board of Facebook, and is now one of the most well known VCs in the world - and this is saying what - that he's not as good as Felix thinks he could be? What the hell has Felix Salmon ever done? I'm seeing more and more of this: pundits and armchair entrepreneurs online who just can't help but…

    What the hell has Felix Salmon ever done?
Felix Salmon is a journalist. He provides value to the world by reporting or critiquing -- in this case, critiquing the notion that Andreessen and his business practices are worth venerating or emulating.

That he has not built a successful start-up is entirely unrelated to that point, much in the same way the fact Roger Ebert isn't a director is unrelated to his critique of films.

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#29

Post by mcphilip »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #10

The article presents an interesting point of view that I think is probably goes too far. It's not Marc's fault if the giant lumbering behemoths that buy companies don't know what to do with them. That's almost intrinsic in their natures, actually, that they'll screw it up. Even the best tech companies do it time and again, and with very good properties. But this line in particular stands out- "...buy its stake in the…

A recent WSJ article uses the same terminology [1]. Also, it's common to refer to things as shadowy in financial markets. Shadow banking system, dark pools of liquidity, etc. Calling something a shadow market is a way to describe a market characterized by asymmetric information, basically.

[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870389970457620...

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#30

Post by ma2rten »

srconstantin wrote: post #24
ma2rten wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People seem to use the word Ponzi-scheme quite loosely these days, but this is not one. I don't know if this is news to you, but it is not a secret, that VCs do invest in companies under the premise that they get sold or they do an IPO (sell to the public). This is because they need to get a return on their investment. However, these companies get bought by bigger companies, who drive some real value from buying them…

I probably phrased it too strongly, but I'm legitimately confused. Something seems...unsettlingly short-term here. I shouldn't have called it a "Ponzi scheme." But perhaps "speculation."

I guess you're right in a sense, but I think it's quite harmless compared to other things people call "investment" (simply because of it's size). Capitalism is all about the short-term and capitalism is system we live in.
Post reply on HN