5 ms·

https://youtu.be/gPKZSuXAVMU https://youtu.be/gPKZSuXAVMU I was watching this 1972 Intel video about the applications of the 4004 chipset, and thought that this

by cft 11y ago

https://youtu.be/gPKZSuXAVMU https://youtu.be/gPKZSuXAVMU I was watching this 1972 Intel video about the applications of the 4004 chipset, and thought that this product was more complex in the engineering sense than what 95% of the current Unicorns produce now. I find this trend worrysome long term for the Silicon Valley.

jerf 11y ago
You might be surprised about the complexity of what is being produced in those "Unicorns". If it were simple, it would have been created forty years ago. It would also be interesting to compare the efforts made then with what it would take today to make as 4004-equivalent. It would certainly be much easier. Anyone in the field armed with the right tools care to hazard a guess?
- cft 11y ago
  You are talking about either business complexity or the critical minimum amount of money that is necessary to enter and dominate a market. I am taking about the engineering complexity. They could not be created earlier for the same reason why Hollywood could not have been created in the 17th century: there was no motion pictures technology or modern internet distribution channels. But none of that tech has to do with Hollywood. The engineering complexity of Airbnb is in the ARM SOC and in the GPS constellation, but not in their app.
  - silentsea90 11y ago
    It isn't necessary that a Unicorn must create something technically sophisticated and intricate. Airbnb is a service, not a tech product. This is an apples to oranges comparison. There are plenty of startups that work on challenging engineering problems (though I'd have to google for the Unicorns who do that).
    - kuschku 11y ago
      Then we should call it "Service Valley" and the people doing this "business men", not "Silicon Valley" and "software engineer". Even comparing the engineering complexity of what Google does, and what Airbnb, Uber, etc do is impossible. Many large unicorns are doing nothing new, or special. They are only clicking existing technology together. Which means they are very easy to outcompete, too.
      - silentsea90 11y ago
        Whether you like it or not, Silicon Valley startups do have a habit of overemphasizing the tech aspects of their companies to get the best talent. It isn't a bad strategy, considering that it makes sure that your business or service isn't susceptible to a technologically superior startup showing up and providing the same services. It is indeed true that there isn't anything groundbreaking about Airbnb or Zenefits (at least technologically). Uber has disrupted the way we travel using technology. Though it isn't as complex as Google, it is still a valid disruption using tech. Well, it isn't always true that unicorns are easy to outcompete. I could argue that Amazon (not AWS) isn't anything special either. The point of a unicorn isn't to develop complex tech. At scale, these companies are hard to beat.
  - jerf 11y ago
    "You are talking about either business complexity or the critical minimum amount of money that is necessary to enter and dominate a market. I am taking about the engineering complexity." Nope, I'm talking about engineering complexity. "I could create Facebook in a weekend!" became such a recurring post on HN that posts about how you really couldn't became cliche, too. Seriously, yes, these "unicorns" really are doing really hard work. In another 30 years maybe you'll be able to turn a crank and produce a unicorn-scale codebase, but we definitely are not there today. Even in the last 5 years a lot of tools have come out to make it noticeably easier. (Note how I said "hard" work. Whether or not it's valuable is an entirely different discussion. Hate the unicorns all you want, it doesn't make them any easier to engineer. I suspect you may be falling for the "I don't like X so X must have every negative quality" cognitive trap.)
    - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
      Facebook is hard work? Scaling it might be somewhat difficult. But it's nothing particularly special. Facebook's success has almost nothing to do with technical achievements. It started as a simple PHP app, after all. One I could write (heck, I've made two different PHP social networks).
      - jerf 11y ago
        Looks like it's gonna be time for another round of "no, you can't write Facebook/Twitter in a week" again. Yes, both are quite easy, as long as you ignore all the parts that make it hard. Like scaling. Lots of things are easy if they don't have to scale.
        TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
        > Looks like it's gonna be time for another round of "no, you can't write Facebook/Twitter in a week" again. Certainly not today's Facebook or Twitter, no. But the initial versions were very simple things. Anyone can make a Facebook or Twitter. Not anyone can grow it to a userbase of hundreds of millions of users. That was what was special, not something technical. Scaling wasn't an issue; once you have investment and users, you just throw money at the problem.

by cft 11y ago

jerf 11y ago

You might be surprised about the complexity of what is being produced in those "Unicorns". If it were simple, it would have been created forty years ago. It would also be interesting to compare the efforts made then with what it would take today to make as 4004-equivalent. It would certainly be much easier. Anyone in the field armed with the right tools care to hazard a guess?

cft 11y ago
You are talking about either business complexity or the critical minimum amount of money that is necessary to enter and dominate a market. I am taking about the engineering complexity. They could not be created earlier for the same reason why Hollywood could not have been created in the 17th century: there was no motion pictures technology or modern internet distribution channels. But none of that tech has to do with Hollywood. The engineering complexity of Airbnb is in the ARM SOC and in the GPS constellation, but not in their app.
- silentsea90 11y ago
  It isn't necessary that a Unicorn must create something technically sophisticated and intricate. Airbnb is a service, not a tech product. This is an apples to oranges comparison. There are plenty of startups that work on challenging engineering problems (though I'd have to google for the Unicorns who do that).
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Then we should call it "Service Valley" and the people doing this "business men", not "Silicon Valley" and "software engineer". Even comparing the engineering complexity of what Google does, and what Airbnb, Uber, etc do is impossible. Many large unicorns are doing nothing new, or special. They are only clicking existing technology together. Which means they are very easy to outcompete, too.
    - silentsea90 11y ago
      Whether you like it or not, Silicon Valley startups do have a habit of overemphasizing the tech aspects of their companies to get the best talent. It isn't a bad strategy, considering that it makes sure that your business or service isn't susceptible to a technologically superior startup showing up and providing the same services. It is indeed true that there isn't anything groundbreaking about Airbnb or Zenefits (at least technologically). Uber has disrupted the way we travel using technology. Though it isn't as complex as Google, it is still a valid disruption using tech. Well, it isn't always true that unicorns are easy to outcompete. I could argue that Amazon (not AWS) isn't anything special either. The point of a unicorn isn't to develop complex tech. At scale, these companies are hard to beat.
- jerf 11y ago
  "You are talking about either business complexity or the critical minimum amount of money that is necessary to enter and dominate a market. I am taking about the engineering complexity." Nope, I'm talking about engineering complexity. "I could create Facebook in a weekend!" became such a recurring post on HN that posts about how you really couldn't became cliche, too. Seriously, yes, these "unicorns" really are doing really hard work. In another 30 years maybe you'll be able to turn a crank and produce a unicorn-scale codebase, but we definitely are not there today. Even in the last 5 years a lot of tools have come out to make it noticeably easier. (Note how I said "hard" work. Whether or not it's valuable is an entirely different discussion. Hate the unicorns all you want, it doesn't make them any easier to engineer. I suspect you may be falling for the "I don't like X so X must have every negative quality" cognitive trap.)
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    Facebook is hard work? Scaling it might be somewhat difficult. But it's nothing particularly special. Facebook's success has almost nothing to do with technical achievements. It started as a simple PHP app, after all. One I could write (heck, I've made two different PHP social networks).
    - jerf 11y ago
      Looks like it's gonna be time for another round of "no, you can't write Facebook/Twitter in a week" again. Yes, both are quite easy, as long as you ignore all the parts that make it hard. Like scaling. Lots of things are easy if they don't have to scale.
      - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
        > Looks like it's gonna be time for another round of "no, you can't write Facebook/Twitter in a week" again. Certainly not today's Facebook or Twitter, no. But the initial versions were very simple things. Anyone can make a Facebook or Twitter. Not anyone can grow it to a userbase of hundreds of millions of users. That was what was special, not something technical. Scaling wasn't an issue; once you have investment and users, you just throw money at the problem.