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

The sad truth about Facebook

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 127 posts

Re: The sad truth about Facebook

#71

Post by DanielBMarkham »

jacquesm wrote: post #63
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #58

Two things. One positive and one negative. Positive. The author understands the gist of what's going on. Places like YC focus on Minimum Viable Product and doing just one thing that people want. These are great and wise strategies for both investors and entrepreneurs, but there's also another term for it that's not as flattering: bottom-feeding. Going after the little bits of value here and there, not being a hunter,…

That read like two negatives to me.

I agree with the author's critique of the trivial nature of most start-ups. Lots of guys are simply trying to make widgets more shiny, and that's a shame because they could do so much more.

I disagree that there is something we can do about it. It's the natural state of affairs.

(My rewrites always take 400-word explanations and turn them into 2 sentences. Writing is much like code golf. Sigh)

Re: The sad truth about Facebook

#72

Post by by »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #58

Two things. One positive and one negative. Positive. The author understands the gist of what's going on. Places like YC focus on Minimum Viable Product and doing just one thing that people want. These are great and wise strategies for both investors and entrepreneurs, but there's also another term for it that's not as flattering: bottom-feeding. Going after the little bits of value here and there, not being a hunter,…

Your description of Minimum Viable Product appears to classify the MVP as the end-point of the process. My thinking is that the MVP is the starting point of an iterative development process. Its value is that it allows users to participate in the product design, and from this feedback you can modify and extend the initial product with the things they actually want rather than the things you imagine they want. The MVP is the first question you ask your users "Is this what you want?". Users find it very difficult to engage with design documents or specifications, but put a product in front of them and they will understand you and tell you what they want different.

Re: The sad truth about Facebook

#74

Post by mitjak »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #56

This article is full of it, but for more reasons than have been articulated so far. One problem is that the article mistakes light for heat. Just because they get less press than Facebook doesn't mean that old-school high-tech engineering startups don't exist. Facebook et al are focused like a laser on getting their names out. That is what social networking is : word-of-mouth viral publicity. Whereas most hardware st…

I am mesmerized by the anthology of well-used analogies and metaphors.

Re: The sad truth about Facebook

#75

Post by [deleted] »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #56

This article is full of it, but for more reasons than have been articulated so far. One problem is that the article mistakes light for heat. Just because they get less press than Facebook doesn't mean that old-school high-tech engineering startups don't exist. Facebook et al are focused like a laser on getting their names out. That is what social networking is : word-of-mouth viral publicity. Whereas most hardware st…

[deleted]

Re: The sad truth about Facebook

#76

Post by zoomzoom »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #71
jacquesm wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That read like two negatives to me.

I agree with the author's critique of the trivial nature of most start-ups. Lots of guys are simply trying to make widgets more shiny, and that's a shame because they could do so much more. I disagree that there is something we can do about it. It's the natural state of affairs. (My rewrites always take 400-word explanations and turn them into 2 sentences. Writing is much like code golf. Sigh)

I agree that things seem more shiny than innovative. Maybe "easy" problems are a natural way of increasing our general software competency across the general population. Before we can get to the big-problem innovation in things like AI and nano tech we have some steps to take. That probably explains why it a seems so natural.

Re: The sad truth about Facebook

#77

Post by dstein »

A lot of people here seem to be calling foul. But whenever I read a list of startups that YCombinator has funded the formula in every case is:

Clone of (X) Targeted For Audience (Y)

The article is correct about a lot of things. Angel investors (including YC) don't really seem interested in investing in really game changing technology, they're interested in following a trend by buying lotto tickets for a few thousand dollars with the hopes that several will hit medium to large sized jackpots in the shortest possible time frame.

Re: The sad truth about Facebook

#78

Post by sabat »

SV innovation was once about creating the technological infrastructure that we all take for granted. Now, it's about using that technology in new, interesting ways to see what might happen.

I have met and spent time with Dan, before he became such a cynic. He was excited about the idea of being near startups and wanted to come up with an idea for his own. What I see when I read his pieces is sadness, disappointment. While I can't blame him, we should understand his point of view in context: he could-a been a contender.

Re: The sad truth about Facebook

#80

Post by bbgm »

While I think there is some truth in the article, and the lack of innovation in SV, one should probably remind the author that some of the more interesting pure technology startups are still SV based. To pick two close to my interests

Complete Genomics: http://www.completegenomics.com/ Pacific Biosciences: http://www.pacificbiosciences.com/ Tilera: http://tilera.com (started out of MIT but now in San Jose)

There is a lot more "noise" out there just because it's easier. I suspect it would have been the same in the past if the capital required was lower. That said we should be asking ourselves if what we are doing has a purpose? I meet too many people with a good "idea" but no purpose, and in the long term that might become a problem.

Post reply on HN