4 ms·

> Regarding DHH, I'll just point at [1], with the comment that Facebook made $891 profit last quarter. It's also currently valued at ~$300B. > [1] https://signa

by tdicola 11y ago

> Regarding DHH, I'll just point at [1], with the comment that Facebook made $891 profit last quarter. It's also currently valued at ~$300B. > [1] https://signalvnoise.com/posts/2585-facebook-is-not-worth-33.. https://signalvnoise.com/posts/2585-facebook-is-not-worth-33.... To be fair that blog post was written in 2010 when Facebook was still a private company and had nowhere near the level of advertising, reach, etc. that it has today. In particular they had barely scratched the surface of mobile and were only making money off Farmville and other ephemeral apps.

nl 11y ago
That's kind of the point!! The trajectory was clear enough that all those investors DHH called "star struck" put money in. To quote him: Irrational investor exuberance indeed. I think it would be more sensible to class them as "investors who had more foresight than DHH". He berated them for being dumb. Since we can now see that they weren't dumb at all we should consider DHH's insights questionable.
- dreamdu5t 11y ago
  They were still dumb, they just got lucky. When you have enough money to throw shit and see what sticks, you don't need to be smart and pick winners. That's the whole crux of why people don't respect VC.
  - nl 11y ago
    Lucky? They were desperately buying anything they could on the secondary markets. That isn't luck, it's seeing an opportunity. It's like Pinterest 2 or 3 years ago (say around the time of the 27M A16Z B round). Putting as much money into that as you could isn't being lucky, it's seeing an opportunity. Their 2014 and 2015 rounds are basically just ways to print money. That's the whole crux of why people don't respect VC. Um. Some people don't respect some VCs. I don't agree with everything Marc Andreessen says, but I'd be pretty silly if I didn't respect his opinion on technology.
oldmanjay 11y ago
To my mind, this mainly reinforces that ample success does not lend one's opinions any credence. Fortunately, there aren't many people relying on DHH for market analysis. It's kind of like how no one really needs to hear my opinions on politics just because I'm a championship level drinker (but I'll give them anyway).

by tdicola 11y ago

nl 11y ago

That's kind of the point!! The trajectory was clear enough that all those investors DHH called "star struck" put money in. To quote him: Irrational investor exuberance indeed. I think it would be more sensible to class them as "investors who had more foresight than DHH". He berated them for being dumb. Since we can now see that they weren't dumb at all we should consider DHH's insights questionable.

dreamdu5t 11y ago
They were still dumb, they just got lucky. When you have enough money to throw shit and see what sticks, you don't need to be smart and pick winners. That's the whole crux of why people don't respect VC.
- nl 11y ago
  Lucky? They were desperately buying anything they could on the secondary markets. That isn't luck, it's seeing an opportunity. It's like Pinterest 2 or 3 years ago (say around the time of the 27M A16Z B round). Putting as much money into that as you could isn't being lucky, it's seeing an opportunity. Their 2014 and 2015 rounds are basically just ways to print money. That's the whole crux of why people don't respect VC. Um. Some people don't respect some VCs. I don't agree with everything Marc Andreessen says, but I'd be pretty silly if I didn't respect his opinion on technology.

oldmanjay 11y ago

To my mind, this mainly reinforces that ample success does not lend one's opinions any credence. Fortunately, there aren't many people relying on DHH for market analysis. It's kind of like how no one really needs to hear my opinions on politics just because I'm a championship level drinker (but I'll give them anyway).