3 ms·

"That the technical companies in the bay area seems to be isolated from the hardships of the rest of the economy doesn't make it a bubble, it's simply a place w

"That the technical companies in the bay area seems to be isolated from the hardships of the rest of the economy doesn't make it a bubble, it's simply a place with a different economic focus with different economic realities." "I swear people around here actually sometimes seem to wish bad things would happen, as some kind of schadenfreude." "The reality is that software is still eating the world, and more change and value to be derived therefrom is still to come: automated vehicles, robotics, smart appliances, VR, and a myriad of far less sexier technological innovations with sound economic value creation." Rewind to the dot-com times, and I believe you'd find people saying the exact same things.

zwischenzug 11y ago
They did; I was there for the tail-end of it. I remember Flash developers on salaries big enough to buy apartments in London for one years' pay. I'm reminded of the Victorian railway investors: railway was the future, but that didn't mean that investment always worked. If the music stopped you would be ruined. But the railways continued to spread.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
>Rewind to the dot-com times, and I believe you'd find people saying the exact same things. Charles Stross basically wrote Accelerando by writing down the stuff people were gossiping and fantasizing about building in Silicon Valley circa the first Dot-Com Bubble, IIRC. Basically none of it actually happened, and almost all companies at that time were basically focused on the same "Stuff my mom used to do for me -- now through a website!" premise. Same as today, mostly. Automated vehicles, robotics, smart appliances, VR, and basically every major technological innovation are capital intensive: five guys in a rented room in a coworking space are not enough. You need a real R&D division.
tomjen3 11y ago
Almost certainly, but that is at least three disruptions ago (a computer in every home, always on internet and a computer with internet in every pocket) - by definition after a disruption you can't use the old predictions because you no longer have the same rules. Today what you can build without engineers (other than your founders) and the cost you of hosting it are magnitudes less than what they were then, which is a change in quantity that causes a change in quality. Look you may be right, but I would need to see much deeper evidence for it, based on current trends and predictions and not stuff people said an eon ago. I would also expect them to be able to use their theory to explain why the "the good times are over" memo didn't cause or predict a crash.

zwischenzug 11y ago

They did; I was there for the tail-end of it. I remember Flash developers on salaries big enough to buy apartments in London for one years' pay. I'm reminded of the Victorian railway investors: railway was the future, but that didn't mean that investment always worked. If the music stopped you would be ruined. But the railways continued to spread.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

>Rewind to the dot-com times, and I believe you'd find people saying the exact same things. Charles Stross basically wrote Accelerando by writing down the stuff people were gossiping and fantasizing about building in Silicon Valley circa the first Dot-Com Bubble, IIRC. Basically none of it actually happened, and almost all companies at that time were basically focused on the same "Stuff my mom used to do for me -- now through a website!" premise. Same as today, mostly. Automated vehicles, robotics, smart appliances, VR, and basically every major technological innovation are capital intensive: five guys in a rented room in a coworking space are not enough. You need a real R&D division.

tomjen3 11y ago

Almost certainly, but that is at least three disruptions ago (a computer in every home, always on internet and a computer with internet in every pocket) - by definition after a disruption you can't use the old predictions because you no longer have the same rules. Today what you can build without engineers (other than your founders) and the cost you of hosting it are magnitudes less than what they were then, which is a change in quantity that causes a change in quality. Look you may be right, but I would need to see much deeper evidence for it, based on current trends and predictions and not stuff people said an eon ago. I would also expect them to be able to use their theory to explain why the "the good times are over" memo didn't cause or predict a crash.