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

After the Gold Rush

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 131 posts

Re: After the Gold Rush

#61

Post by ASinclair »

amelius wrote: post #6
stephenhuey wrote: post #3

He said: "Today’s tech behemoths aren’t the lumbering giants of yesteryear. They are leaner and meaner and more competitive precisely because they have co-opted the same technologies startups used to attack them." But this is far from true with the huge entrenched healthcare tech companies. Many of them haven't even begun to employ the newer software technologies. I'm down the street from the largest medical center i…

The problem with the medical and biological fields is: you generally need expensive equipment. Also, you will need expensive certification. This is something that wasn't the case for software, so I guess this is also why this goldrush was so much different than anything else we've seen before.

A similar problem is where the medical and software industries butt heads. The Software industry likes to take risks and move quickly. It embraces failure. Medicine avoids risk and moves methodically because of that pesky Hippocratic Oath. Failure is often a life and death situation.

My father is a physician. So we've had lots of conversations about this problem. I also here all of his complaints about software. Especially EMR (Electronic Medical Record) systems.

Re: After the Gold Rush

#62

Post by sputknick »

willholloway wrote: post #51

There is truth here, but remember that the age of the intelligent networked machine is just beginning. Look at the YC classes. They are very different from 2005. You can't get rich making a site like reddit today. YC is going international, with X for Y country businesses. I was talking to a friend with a startup in Indonesia. In Asia its like 1998. I think we are just at the end of the easy social/mobile revolution…

I think you are on to something. this post was on HN a few weeks ago about how deep learning is no longer interesting because it has become routine. My first thought when I read that was "deep learning just became interesting because now it's stable enough to build a business around". The end of one cycle is just the beginning of another one. Find out what that new cycle is, hop on, and strap in.

http://www.inference.vc/deep-learning-is-easy/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11006067

Re: After the Gold Rush

#63

Post by rubicon33 »

udkl wrote: post #56
Periodic wrote: post #42

As someone who has worked at Google for a few years, I can't agree with the author's characterization of tech behemoths. While they have embraced the start-up mode of doing things for some new projects and are very free with their investing, their core business is everything you'd expect from a big business. I'm not sure it's possible to grow as large as Google, Apple or Facebook and remain agile. The product and org…

> "The big companies may be innovating on the edges, but their established products are all ripe for disruption." It looks like a cycle. Come up with new product with a small team, add more employees, add more managers, add more cruft, slow down. Then a startup comes along, moving faster, innovating faster, disrupting until it grows and starts to add more employees, add more managers, add more cruft, slow down. And T…

This cycle that you're depicting, is largely sustained by fear.

Big companies buy 'disrupters' when they fear their market share is at risk. But most of the time their market share is not at risk, and they should just wait for X startup to crumble.

Re: After the Gold Rush

#64

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

It's not startups that are losing their luster, it's tech-for-tech's-sake companies. Now that we pretty much have everything we need to be connected, we have to look beyond technology and to the strongest fulcrum of society: culture.

Culture companies are the future. When you can get anything anywhere, the brand matters far more than the product. Anyone can make a burger or a pizza, so why are McDonalds and Pizza Hut crushing it across the globe, especially in China?

We're already seeing this with news. Traditional media companies are struggling to adapt while media outlets with personality like Vice (and Slate, and Quartz) are doing better than ever.

When all the gold is mined, when all the tech is made, the only thing that's left is to sell yourself.

Re: After the Gold Rush

#65

Post by stan_rogers »

stephenhuey wrote: post #15
amelius wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is lots of good bioinformatics software. The problem is often that institutions don't want to pay for it, because open-source software is available with similar functionality (albeit with lacking user interfaces). In my experience, it is very difficult to make money with scientific software in general, so I'm certainly not expecting a "goldrush" here.

I agree to some degree (!) but I believe a lot of the software used by medical personnel in their daily routines could use an overhaul, plus numerous other modern tools could be given to them for daily use.

HIPAA (among other things) makes it Not Fun™ to be in that space. It's not that it isn't ripe—almost overripe—for an overhaul, but that the bureaucratic requirements tend to attract, well, bureaucratic types and reject people of a more "disruptive" nature. There's no particular reason why software and systems that can pass audits can't be as pleasant to use as any; it's just a matter of assembling a team of people that is creative, has both an aesthetic and ergonomic sensibility, and doesn't mind the kind of working environment that the process (and the auditors' interpretation of regulations; it doesn't matter what's actually required if nobody will certify that you've met the requirements) demands.

Re: After the Gold Rush

#66

Post by [deleted] »

willholloway wrote: post #51

There is truth here, but remember that the age of the intelligent networked machine is just beginning. Look at the YC classes. They are very different from 2005. You can't get rich making a site like reddit today. YC is going international, with X for Y country businesses. I was talking to a friend with a startup in Indonesia. In Asia its like 1998. I think we are just at the end of the easy social/mobile revolution…

[deleted]

Re: After the Gold Rush

#67

Post by cft »

askafriend wrote: post #60
cft wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think twtr stock symbol may not exist by 2018 actually

If you really believe that then put money into it.

It's hard to short for such a long time, nearly impossible. Common shorts and puts are short term instruments.

Re: After the Gold Rush

#68

Post by marssaxman »

Eupolemos wrote: post #45
Periodic wrote: post #42

As someone who has worked at Google for a few years, I can't agree with the author's characterization of tech behemoths. While they have embraced the start-up mode of doing things for some new projects and are very free with their investing, their core business is everything you'd expect from a big business. I'm not sure it's possible to grow as large as Google, Apple or Facebook and remain agile. The product and org…

"Of course, if you look too disruptive they'll probably just buy you with their mountain of cash." Woe! :P

Woe to the people working for you, at least.

Re: After the Gold Rush

#70

Post by manmal »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #64

It's not startups that are losing their luster, it's tech-for-tech's-sake companies. Now that we pretty much have everything we need to be connected, we have to look beyond technology and to the strongest fulcrum of society: culture. Culture companies are the future. When you can get anything anywhere, the brand matters far more than the product. Anyone can make a burger or a pizza, so why are McDonalds and Pizza Hut…

I agree with you that brands will grow even more important.

Though, all tech has not been made yet - I suspect tech is taking a short time-out right now before the next big disruptions are enabled by:

* VR (cinema, anyone? could even make some 3d printing obsolete)

* order-of-magnitude faster mobile internet

* cheap(er) robotics

* abundant energy supply thanks to fusion or ; also, perhaps break-through battery tech?

* self-driving cars (obvious, but I think that in itself will enable a lot of disruptions, like cheap grocery delivery)

* cheap(er) drones (= flying cars eventually?)

Post reply on HN