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

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#51

Post by andrewfelix »

andrewljohnson wrote: post #50
andrewfelix wrote: post #44

I think the problem is with publications like Wired and Fast Company. They tend to gush and over exaggerate the achievements of their subjects while glossing over real problems. Everything is 'world changing', 'revolutionary' and 'disruptive'. Fast Company is the worst offender. They rarely critically analyse anything.

It's interesting to me how tangential comments tend to rise to the top so much on HN. Your opinion is fair and all, and I'll believe you follow those publications and have a basis for making the claim. But you could have easily written this comment without having read a word of the article - is that really the best comment for the top of the page?

I'm not looking to get the top comment, it's just an observation. If you feel it doesn't belong here down-vote it.

I don't think my comment is tangential. It helps explain why the original WIRED article didn't offer legitimate criticism of Marc Andreessen.

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#52

Post by dredmorbius »

smacktoward wrote: post #48
dredmorbius wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The modifier you're looking for is "first graphical WWW browser".

Not really; that would include any WWW browser with a GUI interface (like the original WorldWideWeb on NeXTSTEP).

Notepad is a GUI text editor.

MS Paint is a graphical editor.

An application can have a GUI without being graphical. I'll confess to never having used WorldWideWeb on a NeXT box, though vids suggest it didn't do much in the way of typesetting or graphical rendering.

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#53

Post by dredmorbius »

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,…

It's more "greater fool" or possibly multi-level scheme than Ponzi.

In a true Ponzi scheme, payouts come from either investors' own deposits or those of additional investors. There's no investment income in the fund itself.

In Andreeson's case, he's been surfing on the wave of success or perceived success, by inflating subsequent hype bubbles and cashing these out. There's not a strict connection between his ventures, investment funds, and cash-outs, though arguably there would be very little market value if he were perceived as no longer being the golden boy.

I've found myself increasing unimpressed by what he's had to say about the value and credibility of his activities over the past decade or so.

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#54

Post by dredmorbius »

jmj42 wrote: post #40
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.

> He has never really created anything of long-term value Except HP Server Automation[1], HP Operations Orchestration[2], HP Network Automation[3], and that's just Opsware products. That doesn't touch on the lasting transformational aspects of his work at UIUC, or Netscape. [1] http://www8.hp.com/emea_middle_east/en/software/software-pro... [2] http://www8.hp.com/emea_middle_east/en/software/software-pro... [3] http:…

Opsware is a freaking joke.

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#55

Post by davidmr »

patmeckham wrote: post #39

The problem with Andreeson is he doesn't aim to build anything that is built to last. Having his creations be acquired for substantial sums by nervous corporations (who proceed to let them die) serves no one but Andreeson himself and his investors. As a consumer, I value programs like netpbm, feh, ffmpeg and mplayer far more than Netscape and all the monolithic browser crap that has followed. I can rely on the former…

That's selling jwz a little short, my friend. A better way to say that would be "got rich as fuck and bought a nightclub", but that doesn't really fit your angle.

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#56

Post by jcc80 »

Page view journalism. "Hmm...that article on how AH should have made more from the Instagram deal blew up. What other negative angle can I take on these guys while their 'hot' to juice some page views?"

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#57

Post by rhizome »

andrewfelix wrote: post #51
andrewljohnson wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting to me how tangential comments tend to rise to the top so much on HN. Your opinion is fair and all, and I'll believe you follow those publications and have a basis for making the claim. But you could have easily written this comment without having read a word of the article - is that really the best comment for the top of the page?

I'm not looking to get the top comment, it's just an observation. If you feel it doesn't belong here down-vote it. I don't think my comment is tangential. It helps explain why the original WIRED article didn't offer legitimate criticism of Marc Andreessen.

Another way of looking at it, and probably what WIRED people would say, is that they don't run badmouth stories, ergo if the story was going to have a negative tone they simply might not run it at all.

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#58

Post by andrewfelix »

rhizome wrote: post #57
andrewfelix wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not looking to get the top comment, it's just an observation. If you feel it doesn't belong here down-vote it. I don't think my comment is tangential. It helps explain why the original WIRED article didn't offer legitimate criticism of Marc Andreessen.

Another way of looking at it, and probably what WIRED people would say, is that they don't run badmouth stories, ergo if the story was going to have a negative tone they simply might not run it at all.

Critical Analysis and badmouthing aren't the same thing. Plenty of publications get good interviews with polarising figures while critically analysing their achievements.

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#59

Post by nullflux »

andrewfelix wrote: post #45
ReadEvalPost wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

>Felix Salmon is a journalist. Exactly. Not being a successful VC does not preclude you from criticising a successful VC.

However, Salmon's incentives aren't aligned the same and regardless of his desire to show a lack of bias to be a "good journalist", there is a point that he stands a lot to gain if his critique of Andreessen becomes popular.

Sure, he makes good points, but I'd take this type of critique a lot more seriously if a successful VC said it. Journalists are good at writing and doing a job of disseminating information. Given their role, they will never be completely accurate when it comes to making predictions of an industry in which they are often on the periphery of "the trenches".

Re: The Problem With Marc Andreessen

#60

Post by jmj42 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #54
jmj42 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He has never really created anything of long-term value Except HP Server Automation[1], HP Operations Orchestration[2], HP Network Automation[3], and that's just Opsware products. That doesn't touch on the lasting transformational aspects of his work at UIUC, or Netscape. [1] http://www8.hp.com/emea_middle_east/en/software/software-pro... [2] http://www8.hp.com/emea_middle_east/en/software/software-pro... [3] http:…

Opsware is a freaking joke.

Do mind elaborating?

In fact, Opsware created products that (still) play an important role in large, private, datacenters. Hell, for what it's worth, their 3 main products were actually created to manage their own infrastructure. Which part of that is the joke?

Post reply on HN