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

What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

#71

Post by diminish »

patmcguire wrote: post #56
bwanab wrote: post #30

"...but it is harder to do business in most states in the US than it is to do business in a lot of places around the world.” And yet, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation's ranking on ease of doing business the U.S. as a whole came in a respectable 10th, and I'm going to make a wild guess that the places he is talking about in that quote aren't many if any of the countries ahead of the U.S. [ http://www.…

Yeah, it's a pretty ludicrous statement. When was the last time Marc Adreessen had to pay a bribe?

your intended point is right. but bribes usually make everything easier for startups in over-bureaucratic states, bribes themselves are not making anything hard, but unethical.

Re: What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

#72

Post by diminish »

pg wrote: post #35
pstuart wrote: post #6

He was in the right place at the right time and now he's rich. And that's the only reason why anybody is listening to him now, certainly not for anything else he's done. Cheaper labor? How about a more effective labor force? Ugh.

You are so mistaken that I wince for your sake reading this comment. The reason I listen to Marc is that he's among the smartest people in the startup community.

Reading a lot of comments here against Marc, I would like to remind him, your recent words on "why being good" is important and "don't be evil" motto is good for everyone and even for smart people.

Re: What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

#73

Post by simonh »

rhizome wrote: post #69
simonh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The telcos want to charge Youtube (and others) more money for a faster connection to me, but I already paid for my connection to be fast. Those aren't Youtube's bits coming to me over the wire though, they are mine. I paid for them, both in money to the telco for my connection through them, and to Youtube with my attention to their ads.

It's not even that complicated, they just want to use the existing pay-TV business models that businesspeople have studied for decades . It's highly inconvenient for established businesspeople to have to invent new business and revenue models, so a power grab and an encircling legal framework comes as no surprise. These are the people who hire lobbyists, and current internet freedoms are anathema to (the current form…

It's not anathema to capitalism at all. Amazon, Google, eBay, Facebook, Dropbox and many, many more are making good money off the internet as it is. I don't understand the anti-capitalism jibe. What's the alternative? Would they be better off as state owned public services?

Re: What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

#74

Post by loumf »

kirinan wrote: post #47
loumf wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America Online, the largest Internet access service, said today it will acquire Netscape Communications in a deal valued at $4.2 billion. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-218360.html HP today announced that it has signed a definitive agreement to purchase Opsware Inc. (Nasdaq: OPSW), a market-leading data center automation software company, through a cash tender offer for $14.25 per share, or an enterprise value (net o…

While I can't disagree with the numbers, these were acquired at what could be considered the peak of a bubble, thus possibly way over-priced. Although, to say that he didn't create something awesome (both Opsware and Netscape) would be trivializing what he has done, and it isn't fair to him either. I think it would be fair to say he knows far more about business/what it takes to make a start-up than 99% of the world.

Right, and one of the things he stresses is timing. Opsware was famously founded before a crash and figured out how to survive to the next bubble.

http://bhorowitz.com/2010/03/17/the-case-for-the-fat-startup...

Re: What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

#75

Post by pstuart »

pg wrote: post #35
pstuart wrote: post #6

He was in the right place at the right time and now he's rich. And that's the only reason why anybody is listening to him now, certainly not for anything else he's done. Cheaper labor? How about a more effective labor force? Ugh.

You are so mistaken that I wince for your sake reading this comment. The reason I listen to Marc is that he's among the smartest people in the startup community.

It's an honor to have a personal smackdown from PG.

I'm sure he's very smart, and I don't disagree with his observations, however the cheaper labor part was offensive. That was basic "fuck you" to everybody of the non-founder class.

And being rich/powerful certainly helps have people care what you have to say.

You are very smart too -- if Viaweb had not succeeded as it had would people pay as much attention to you?

Edit:

In reflection my comment was not in the proper spirit of HN -- it was bitter and that's not needed here. It did get upvoted plenty though...

Note to self: abandon any notion of ever applying to YC.

Re: What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen

#76

Post by rhizome »

simonh wrote: post #73
rhizome wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even that complicated, they just want to use the existing pay-TV business models that businesspeople have studied for decades . It's highly inconvenient for established businesspeople to have to invent new business and revenue models, so a power grab and an encircling legal framework comes as no surprise. These are the people who hire lobbyists, and current internet freedoms are anathema to (the current form…

It's not anathema to capitalism at all. Amazon, Google, eBay, Facebook, Dropbox and many, many more are making good money off the internet as it is. I don't understand the anti-capitalism jibe. What's the alternative? Would they be better off as state owned public services?

The idea is that the current state of capitalism, as I'm using the phrase, is somewhat static in the way that many Internet businesses are attempting to use it in terms of past business models. Consider the music industry.

Why are capitalists so sensitive that criticism always registers as "anti?" Psychologists have a lot to say about absolutist thinking, calling it "either/or," "black/white," "polarized," "binary," "catastrophizing," and similar. My illustration in terms of pay-TV should have been enough of a clue of the distinction I'm making, and that that distinction was not concerned with eliminating an entire ideology.

Post reply on HN