The Problem With Marc Andreessen - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/26/the-problem-with-marc-andreessen/

<comment><USER2> I don't understand.

The man created the web browser, built multiple billion dollar companies, angel invested and sits on the board of Facebook, and is now one of the most well known VCs in the world - and this is saying what - that he's not as good as Felix thinks he could be?

What the hell has Felix Salmon ever done?

I'm seeing more and more of this: pundits and armchair entrepreneurs online who just can't help but tear down people who went in the arena and worked their asses off and built something.

Shut up and go build something people want.

<comment><USER3> 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.

<comment><USER4> And why is this a bad thing? I don't see why it makes a difference if the company continues to exist on it's own or as part of another company.

<comment><USER5> True. I think the point is more that these companies made no profits while they were independent and then continued to make no profits after they were acquired; thus in retrospect the acquirers must have overpaid.

<comment><USER4> Except that this line of reasoning assumes that the people who run the acquiring company are morons. This is quite a strong assumption to make without any further evidence. I think neither of us knows enough about HP's fiances to make that claim (I presume you were talking about Opsware).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article presents an interesting point of view that I think is probably goes too far. It's not Marc's fault if the giant lumbering behemoths that buy companies don't know what to do with them. That's almost intrinsic in their natures, actually, that they'll screw it up. Even the best tech companies do it time and again, and with very good properties.

But this line in particular stands out- "...buy its stake in the shadowy secondary market instead."

Come on. Shadowy? Really? Making it sound like he's buying plutonium or something.

<comment><USER7> A recent WSJ article uses the same terminology [1]. Also, it's common to refer to things as shadowy in financial markets. Shadow banking system, dark pools of liquidity, etc. Calling something a shadow market is a way to describe a market characterized by asymmetric information, basically.

[1] [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870389970457620...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204911626387514.html)

<comment><USER6> Fair point, though I do think there's a notable difference in implications of "shadow market" and "shadowy market", more than the one extra letter would indicate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Netscape's core was reborn as Firefox. Netscape invented the image tag, along with much of what we consider essential to what the internet is today. Most here would probably attest that it was also the superior product in its day, only losing out to IE thanks to questionably legal monopoly muscling from MS.

Opsware was purchased for $1.6bn by HP, hardly a failure...

Andreesen has a strong history of execution and value generation and Netscape was a pioneer, not a cheap shareholder exploitation vehicle. This article is grasping at straws.

Edit: Clearly HP the thought Opsware was extremely valuable at the time of purchase and the author provides no evidence to support his claim that it was not a good purchase for HP. According to comments on the article, Opsware's product still exists and has simply been rebranded.

<comment><USER9> _Opsware was purchased for $1.6bn by HP, hardly a failure..._

The thesis of the article is that Marc has been very successful at selling things, but that these things have not been so successful for the people who bought them from him. I don't think you are at odds with the author if you're saying that Marc has been successful at making money.

<comment><USER8> The article didn't actually give any evidence as to why Opsware was a bad purchase for HP, and according the comments in the article the product still exists and has simply been rebranded.

I suppose I was trying to imply with the $1.6bn price tag that clearly HP thought the product was immensely valuable and I thought "who is the author to say that they were so wrong without a shard of evidence?" Admittedly, I failed to actually draw this line of reasoning in the post at all and have no reason to suppose others would infer it as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10>
      they're primarily interested in buying into any company,
      no matter how flash-in-the-pan, where Andreessen Horowitz
      can exit its investment for a large multiple of whatever
      it bought in at.

It's worth mentioning that this behavior isn't unique to Andreessen Horowitz.

This also makes me wonder if this type of attitude might be hurting the long term prospects of our economy.

<comment><USER11> Yes, it is.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking>

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> 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, but if there's any truth to this version of the story, it seems like it's heading for disaster. I've already met a lot of startup founders who insist that profitability doesn't matter. How on earth is that attitude sustainable?

<comment><USER4> People seem to use the word Ponzi-scheme quite loosely these days, but this is not one. I don't know if this is news to you, but it is not a secret, that VCs do invest in companies under the premise that they get sold or they do an IPO (sell to the public). This is because they need to get a return on their investment.

However, these companies get bought by bigger companies, who drive some real value from buying them. If the big company screws it up or decides to integrate the product in their own, that does not make it a Ponzi-scheme.

<comment><USER12> I probably phrased it too strongly, but I'm legitimately confused. Something seems...unsettlingly short-term here. I shouldn't have called it a "Ponzi scheme." But perhaps "speculation."

<comment><USER4> I guess you're right in a sense, but I think it's quite harmless compared to other things people call "investment" (simply because of it's size). Capitalism is all about the short-term and capitalism is system we live in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> 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.

<comment><USER14> 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?

<comment><USER13> 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.

<comment><USER15> 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.

<comment><USER13> Critical Analysis and badmouthing aren't the same thing. Plenty of publications get good interviews with polarising figures while critically analysing their achievements.

<comment><USER15> Right. I'm speaking of WIRED specifically.

<comment><USER13> My point is WIRED can critically analyse without badmouthing.

<comment><USER15> They could, but they don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As long as we're being accurate:

> His single greatest achievement — the creation of the world's first web > browser, Mosaic — took place under the auspices of the National Center for > Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois.

All correct, except for "first". The world's first web browser was WorldWideWeb[1], written by Tim Berners-Lee. But I suppose it is true that Mosaic was the first browser that got noticed by anyone other than the Chosen Few.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldWideWeb>

<comment><USER17> If we want to really get pedantic, Mosaic was a "first" -- the first WWW browser to support embedding inline images in Web pages. Previous browsers were text-only; you could post images, but they could only be linked to, not displayed directly inside a page. That made the WWW too similar to Gopher (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_%28protocol%29>) to really break out in popularity. Mosaic's support for inline graphics is what caused the Web's first real wave of general interest outside academia.

More here: [http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/04/0422mosaic-web- br...](http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/04/0422mosaic-web-browser/)

<comment><USER11> The modifier you're looking for is "first _graphical_ WWW browser".

<comment><USER17> Not really; that would include any WWW browser with a GUI interface (like the original WorldWideWeb on NeXTSTEP).

<comment><USER11> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm seeing something very similar happening in SV as happened in Wallstreet prior to when the big mess began in 2008: the media generated cult of personality for people who make money, not successful lasting companies.

<comment><USER19> I have no problem with making money (even lots of it), but I agree with you that building personality cults is a bad practice by elements within the media. Nothing wrong with deflating personality cults, however, I don't think this article accomplishes that task. This piece smells of a hit piece and typically makes the author looks worse than the intended target.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> 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 programs year after year.

By contrast, Andreeson offers little to consumers. His best programmer at Netscape was put out of job and now runs a nightclub. I think that says it all. Andreeson is not improving the world of software and technology. He has no intention of building things that last. He's in it to make a quick buck. Quality and consumers be damned.

<comment><USER21> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> IF you apply the high standards that the author is applying to andreesen than there may not be more than a handful of entrepreneurs who meet that criteria. When apple eventually loses its luster 20 yrs from now, you could write an article saying what did Steve jobs achieve? It's the most idiotic article I have read about a person who started 3 really great companies.

</comment><comment><USER23> Marc kicked off an information sharing revolution the likes of which humanity has never seen prior. Even if someone had come along a year later and made a browser the masses could use, that's still tantamount to a civilizational change delayed a _year_. Felix the Hater should reconsider.

</comment><comment><USER24> 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?"

</comment><comment><USER25> Marc.

</comment><comment><USER26> Anyone know what the p in pmarca stands for?

<comment><USER27> At his old company everyone had a public email address which was their first name + last initial, and a "private" one that was the public one preceded by the letter "p".</comment></comment>


Chrome as a Service, in a Docker Container - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/browserless/chrome <comment><AUTHOR> Note that it is not open-source:

> If you want to use browserless to build commercial sites, applications, or > in a continuous-integration system that's closed-source then you'll need to > purchase a commercial license. This allows you to keep your software > proprietary whilst still using browserless.

<comment><USER2> The LICENSE file claims it's a dual-license: GPLv3 or a commercial license, but I'd be wary about that given quotes like the above...</comment></comment>


Startup Idea: Fight Evil - <AUTHOR> http://kirubakaran.blogspot.com/2007/08/simple-way-to-become-rich.html

<comment><USER2> Regarding put options on SCO - it's not as simple as this. If you get the timing wrong you'll get hit with margin call. Certainly, SCO's stock did go up at periods during the IBM case. Selling short has what Satyajit Das would call "the bad kind of leverage" (the kind where you're exposed to potentially infinite losses).

> Watch out for options expiry though.

Also worth considering - I'm not sure what happens if you pick a failure so well that they de-list before your delivery date.

> Microsoft, anyone?

I read someone give a good example somewhere where Microsoft showed how dangerous it was to play short. In the 80s you might have looked at them and how poor their technology was and bet against them - 'Unix will come to the desktop and wipe them out!'. Then.. 'OS/2 will kick their ass!'. Then.. 'Digital Research now has a better DOS!' Suddenly you're having to sell your house to meet margin call, and fifteen years later their stock is still work a fortune.

> Consult your accountants and financial experts before > proceeding with this > idea.

And only ones who don't have anything to gain from your decision one way or another.

For me the key questions is "Am I a trader?" Since I'm not, I recognise that I'm better off playing it safe with the market and putting my energy into fields where I have a hope of understand the play properly and being competitive.

If you're even vaguely interested in derivative investments I strongly recommend reading _Traders, Guns and Money_ (by Das). It's a good sequence of pirate stories. He also picked sub-prime well before it happened.

<comment><USER3> From "Money, Money, Money" by Philip Greenspun (<http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/money>):

It is 1986. You buy yourself an IBM PC. You are using MS/DOS and say "This sucks. It isn't even as good as operating systems from 1960." You're a computer expert so you know that the technology is pathetic. You do some business research and find that out that the company making this MS/DOS product didn't even have the in-house expertise to build it itself. They bought it from another company!" You call your broker and find out that this "Microsoft" company is publicly traded and selling for a very lofty price/earnings ratio. You smell blood and say "I want to short 100 shares of Microsoft."

Your broker is holding many shares of Microsoft in "street name" for other customers. So he can very easily find 100 shares of Microsoft to lend you. He lends you these 100 shares, and you sell them immediately. Suppose that the price/share is $10. You get $1000 that you can put into the bank. However, you owe your broker 100 shares of Microsoft Corporation. No problem, you figure. In another year, this company will be near bankruptcy and selling for $0.25/share. You'll buy 100 shares to cover the short for $25, thus making a profit of $975 less commissions.

Well, in another year, Microsoft is not selling for $0.25/share. In fact, it has gone up to $30/share. You still owe the broker 100 shares, but those 100 shares would cost $3000 to buy. You have a paper loss of $2000 right now. Your broker calls and wants you to put up some assets where he can get at them, either cash or stocks. He doesn't trust you to come up with the cash to cover your Microsoft short unless the cash is physically under his control. You consider cutting your losses by closing your position. Remember that it is 1987, though, and Microsoft hasn't gotten any better at writing software. In fact, they are flailing around trying to copy the Apple Macintosh interface, itself a copy of a Xerox system from the mid-1970s. What a bunch of losers. You put up the extra cash.

By 1996, Microsoft has split a bunch of times and you now owe your broker 1000 shares at $150/share. That's $150,000 to cover the short. You sell your house and say "You know, that potential return of $1000 was not worth ten years of agonized scanning of the stock pages, margin calls, and an ultimate loss of $150,000."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Per this idea, shorts on the insurance companies dealing with the WTC were trading at 30x their usual volume in the days leading up to 9-11. So the WTC was destroyed, insurance companies took a bath and whoever shorted their stock became quite rich. Most of these funds have since been traced back to Al Qaeda associates.

I call this "outsider trading." His example of Greenpeace shorting Exxon before suing them is quite similar to the example I just gave. I have no idea if this sort of behavior is regulated by the SEC the way insider trading is. I think it's generally un-ethical though.

<comment><USER5> "Most of these funds have since been traced back to Al Qaeda associates"

Do you have a link to back that up? Haven't heard that before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ooh! I thought I was just making money, but I was also fighting evil. My awesomeness cannot be contained.

I spotted an immediate opportunity as soon as they opened up the box of trouble that is a baseless lawsuit against IBM. I shorted SCO during their long decline. It took longer than I expected, and I bought to cover before the end (which still hasn't quite come), because I wanted to avoid more tax hassle (I was short on SCO something like three years ago, and the end really hasn't come yet). I personally followed SCO from before all of the trouble, because of some intellectual property issues I had with them, so I already knew they play fast and loose with copyright and IP (I won't go into detail, because I'm pretty sure the non-disclosure from the settlement is still in effect).

<comment><USER7> >I was short on SCO something like three years ago, and the end really hasn't come yet)

Nasdaq delisted them this morning.

<comment><USER6> That was expected (bankruptcy filings were announced a while back, and companies in bankruptcy can't be listed on NASDAQ). Hopefully, everyone who was short SCO has sold to cover before now. SCO, the company, still exists, and still has ongoing lawsuits, unbelievable as it sounds. But, you're quite right that this is the end of the SCOX stock story. I don't foresee them recovering from this--have you seen their new products in the mobile space that they intended to be the next big thing? They're so bad and so clearly not viable that I have to assume there was something semi-fraudulent going on...like raising more money from credulous investors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here's the problem:

Truth will always win out, but it won't always win out quickly. At some point, you need to cover your short positions and your put options will expire, and if truth hasn't won out yet, you can land yourself in a world of financial hurt.

Note that this is just the more problem w/ shorting and put options and why these instruments are typically only used by people w/ access to large amounts of capital - they can afford to wait it out.

<comment><USER9> Indeed. As John Maynard Keynes put it, _The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent._

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Empirica Capital does (or did) something similar. Their strategy is based on the belief that securities are overvalued because investors underestimate the effects of rare catastrophes. So Empirica slowly bleeds away their investment capital by buying way-out-of-the-money put options and then waits for a catastrophe.

<comment><USER10> That's Nassim Taleb's thing, right? I get the impression from the book and various things (his wikipedia page) that it's not something he's involved with any longer. Is it still operative?

<comment><USER3> Yes, Taleb and Spitznagel. I don't know if that fund is still around. I couldn't find much information on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Fighting Evil is more fun if you get to run around wearing pajamas and a cape!

<comment><USER6> If you buy/sell your stocks and options online, you can! (I guess you still could, even buying down at the local Schwab office...but I'm not sure what kind of service you'd get.)</comment></comment>


'For Dummies' guide publisher, Wiley, seeks piracy trial - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17763218

<comment><USER2> How can it be fair to have up to a $150,000 penalty at stake when going to trial, yet allow a $750 penalty to suffice if not going to trial?

I'd pay $750 even if I was fully innocent, just because the massive risk of losing and lawyers fees just can't be worth it. That seems unbalanced.</comment>


Firefox WebExtensions – Two years later, functionality test - <AUTHOR> https://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/firefox-webextensions-value-two-years-later.html <comment><USER2> Like dedoimedo.com, I'm very disappointed in Firefox after version 57 and I no longer use it. It would take me pages to document all the many issues that were there before WebExtensions as well as those that came afterwards.

To my mind, enhancing pre-57 Firefox to bigger and better things would have been a much more preferable option. There's no doubt that Mozilla's move to WebExtensions has contributed to Firefox's decline. Unfortunately, it's left many of us with few other options.

I now use Pale Moon browser and an ancient version of Thunderbird for this reason.</comment>


India Only 'Partly Free' When It Comes to Internet Freedom – The Wire - <AUTHOR> http://thewire.in/2015/11/08/india-only-partly-free-when-it-comes-to-internet-freedom-14963/ <comment><USER2> The network was shutdown twice in the last two months due to the Patels agitating in gujarat for f __ __ __reservations.</comment>


India's Low-Cost Aakash Tablet Pre-Orders Hit 1.4 Million - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/03/indias-low-cost-aakash-tablet-pre-orders-hit-1-4-million/ <comment><USER2> "Update: Datawind confirms that the "pre-orders" are no-money-down reservations, not paid-in-full pre-orders. So it's more like people waiting in line than real orders."</comment>


Show HN: Hyperlapse View of Hong Kong Protests - <AUTHOR> http://www.lapsetube.com/tag/hkig

<comment><AUTHOR> Note that this sideproject was inspired by Hypermasher featured here earlier, I wanted to expand it to explore videos by topic.</comment>