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

Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 172 posts

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#71

Post by IanCal »

mdpopescu wrote: post #56
csydas wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the criticism lobbied against AirBnB and Uber is for a reason, and the reason isn't the same "up-yours" attitude of past maverick tech companies. It's a little easier to buy the maverick attitude of something like gnutella when the author isn't getting close to billion dollar revenue yearly. It may seem a little strange, but the ethos is a bit easier to believe when you stay outside the system and benefit eve…

Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone", except when you're a part of regulatory capture (which AirBnB and Uber are not... yet).

> Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone",

No, no it is not. One party making lots of money is not the same as something benefitting everyone.

Companies ignoring environmental regulations could make more money, but it wouldn't benefit everyone, as an example.

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#72

Post by madeofpalk »

mdpopescu wrote: post #56
csydas wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the criticism lobbied against AirBnB and Uber is for a reason, and the reason isn't the same "up-yours" attitude of past maverick tech companies. It's a little easier to buy the maverick attitude of something like gnutella when the author isn't getting close to billion dollar revenue yearly. It may seem a little strange, but the ethos is a bit easier to believe when you stay outside the system and benefit eve…

Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone", except when you're a part of regulatory capture (which AirBnB and Uber are not... yet).

> Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone"

This is by far the strangest thing I've ever heard.

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#73

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

majkinetor wrote: post #61
derefr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ultra-lightweight" can mean two very different (and nearly opposite) things: some people want a player that has no external dependencies (and thus must do everything itself, like VLC); while others want a player with minimal binary size (which thus will then rely on the OS's AV frameworks as much as possible for media support.) Personally, I prefer the second definition, but it's the harder of the two to satisfy. I…

VLC is great, but UI sux tbh. Also, SMplayer is great, but UI sux even more for audio. The level of 'it just works' for those 2 products is just not comparable to anything else. Plus they are cross platform, works on pretty much anything in existence. That is the reason I tollerate UI and use them every day. Also, while it lacks audio management, SMPlayer is the best video player, period.

VLC supports skins now, so you can trick-out your VLC installation to almost look like Winamp if you put the effort in.

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#74

Post by fauigerzigerk »

IanCal wrote: post #71
mdpopescu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone", except when you're a part of regulatory capture (which AirBnB and Uber are not... yet).

> Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone", No, no it is not. One party making lots of money is not the same as something benefitting everyone. Companies ignoring environmental regulations could make more money, but it wouldn't benefit everyone, as an example.

Before even talking about externalities like the environment it's worth noting that revenue isn't profit. So who benefits from revenue depends on profit margins.

If a startup disrupts a high margin industry, especially if that industry is also inefficient (which often goes together) and replaces it with a more efficient lower margin business model, then consumers will benefit.

If a startup disrupts an industry by finding loopholes in government regulations, the question of who benefits is much more complicated. I do believe that finding loopholes or even breaking the law to some degree is a necessary part of the democratic process. It's also unavoidable given the global nature of some businesses.

But whether or not regulatory arbitrage benefits anyone other than founders and investors very much depends on the specific business model and local circumstances. It's extremely complicated and varied. Finding out what all the effects are will probably produce a couple of nobel laureates in economics.

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#75

Post by sametmax »

nikcub wrote: post #35

Despite the "change the world.. break the rules, etc." rhetoric, Silicon Valley couldn't be more different today. I find it hard to imagine a Google employee releasing an ad blocker[0], or Popcorn Time raising a Series A round, or startups shipping crypto that breaks the law, or a startup selling offensive security software (there's a reason that business has been pushed overseas) Today, startups that push the bounda…

I often read stuff like that. "Now you couldn't do it like they did it before".

"You wouldn't be able to get away with the same jokes today."

Or

"You wouldn't be able to publish the same story today."

I agree that time changes, but this is discarding the merits of those who did it then.

Believe it or not, at that time it was not easy either. The people that did it had huge balls.

Geeks were considered less that nothing by society. The working world didn't trust them, believe in them or value them. They were basically rejected, as something annoying you had to have somewhere in your closet. My father actually told me in 2003 that he was disappointed I choose to work in such a boring field.

Technology didn't exist. You couldn't google your way out of anything like today (now if you google, SO answer everything!). Networks and computer where slow and expensive (we now got unmetered VPS for 3€/month, come on!). Less libraries, less frameworks, no crazy powerful API (can you believe making uber before google map ?) and no proof whatsoever that what you wanted to do was achievable.

The market was unproven (the 2000 bubble killed so much). We had no experience in it. Not tools to recruit, sell, build...

It's was not easier to do anything. The constraints were just different.

The constraints of tomorrow will be also different.

Let's not use the change as an excuse.

Doing something that matters is ALWAYS HARD.

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#76

Post by jd_hicks »

mdpopescu wrote: post #56
csydas wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the criticism lobbied against AirBnB and Uber is for a reason, and the reason isn't the same "up-yours" attitude of past maverick tech companies. It's a little easier to buy the maverick attitude of something like gnutella when the author isn't getting close to billion dollar revenue yearly. It may seem a little strange, but the ethos is a bit easier to believe when you stay outside the system and benefit eve…

Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone", except when you're a part of regulatory capture (which AirBnB and Uber are not... yet).

Travis?

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#77

Post by xiaoma »

mdpopescu wrote: post #56
csydas wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the criticism lobbied against AirBnB and Uber is for a reason, and the reason isn't the same "up-yours" attitude of past maverick tech companies. It's a little easier to buy the maverick attitude of something like gnutella when the author isn't getting close to billion dollar revenue yearly. It may seem a little strange, but the ethos is a bit easier to believe when you stay outside the system and benefit eve…

Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone", except when you're a part of regulatory capture (which AirBnB and Uber are not... yet).

Wikipedia benefits just about everybody with an internet connection and they sure don't make a billion dollars a year. The same could be said of open source devs who contribute to core projects running our internet.

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#78

Post by marvin »

sametmax wrote: post #75
nikcub wrote: post #35

Despite the "change the world.. break the rules, etc." rhetoric, Silicon Valley couldn't be more different today. I find it hard to imagine a Google employee releasing an ad blocker[0], or Popcorn Time raising a Series A round, or startups shipping crypto that breaks the law, or a startup selling offensive security software (there's a reason that business has been pushed overseas) Today, startups that push the bounda…

I often read stuff like that. "Now you couldn't do it like they did it before". "You wouldn't be able to get away with the same jokes today." Or "You wouldn't be able to publish the same story today." I agree that time changes, but this is discarding the merits of those who did it then. Believe it or not, at that time it was not easy either. The people that did it had huge balls. Geeks were considered less that nothi…

I don't think that you and nikcub necessarily disagree. I read his comment more as "technologists today tend to/are forced to conform more to the expectations of society/powerful instutitions" than a comment about everything being easier before.

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#79

Post by iopq »

madeofpalk wrote: post #72
mdpopescu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone", except when you're a part of regulatory capture (which AirBnB and Uber are not... yet).

> Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone" This is by far the strangest thing I've ever heard.

If millions of people want to pay you money, you bet you're benefiting someone. Or else they wouldn't pay.

Re: Nullsoft: The death of the last maverick tech company (2004)

#80

Post by DougBTX »

csydas wrote: post #62
mdpopescu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone", except when you're a part of regulatory capture (which AirBnB and Uber are not... yet).

I'm not sure I follow. I didn't explain my point well now that I've re-read it but the idea is more than the early maverick hacker projects felt more like just a project, something that was made to make sure everyone's lives got better. Uber, AirBnB, et. al., were business from the beginning. Their interests look to be making money, not providing a service or making it better. The focus isn't on making transportation…

> I'm not sure I follow.

So, thinking out loud... a billion dollars at $10 a ride, so lots of transactions, lots of customers. Theory says a transaction will only happen if both sides feel they will profit, so lots of people must have benefited, right?

But no, because you were talking about the total benefit, not total number of people who benefit.

Trivially, if the customers got a ride plus a share of a billion dollars, they'd be better off than if they just got the ride. More benefit would be delivered to customers if Uber had zero revenue, so using a massive revenue figure as a measure of value delivered to customers is meaningless.

But, the guy might still be on to something, since Uber benefiting lots of people only a little may still be more total benefit than some free software that hardly anyone uses, he just needs to back that idea up with something more substantial.

Post reply on HN