6 ms·

made an account to post this b/c I don't normally post on hackernews but does anyone else get a sense of schadenfreude when reading these comments There are p

by bigfoig 10y ago

made an account to post this b/c I don't normally post on hackernews but does anyone else get a sense of schadenfreude when reading these comments There are people doubting that Facebook could monetize or become a blue chip stock There's a comment of a guy being sure that Instagram would fail and literally says "Bookmark this comment, see you in 2022" (Five years to go boys) This is why I'm convinced that people should honestly share like 1% of what they are really thinking in comments. Yeah, there might be a 1% chance that Instagram would succeed, but do you really want to look like the idiot doubting it could ever happen, with your comment immortalized on the world wide web five years later when you're proven wrong?

macspoofing 10y ago
In hindsight everything looks obvious. At the time the failure of MySpace was still fresh, Facebook had not monitized its service and it wasn't obvious that chat clients like WhatsApp and SnapChat would (or could) get these insane multi-billion valuations.
- argonaut 10y ago
  I think it was obvious. I remember being in college during the acquisition and thinking it was obviously a smart deal. And Instagram was pursued hotly, so many tech insiders thought it was a good deal too. People on Hacker News are only now just coming around to Snapchat, but I thought Snapchat was obviously going to succeed 4 years ago when I was still in college - 70% of the people I knew in college were using it. You might object to this and claim that other apps (which are not guaranteed successes now) like Yik Yak should have been similarly "obvious" to me at the time - but that's just not true. I didn't know anyone who used other social media apps (like Yik Yak, etc.) at the time as much as Snapchat (if they did, they kept it to themselves). But when it comes to social apps, there's just something about Hacker News being particularly closed-minded. Even in the face of overwhelming usage, I still see a solid plurality of cynical HN comments about any given social app.
  - b2600 10y ago
    I don't object to the veracity of your claims but I would note that "it's what everyone around me is using" doesn't scale very well. For example, if you're from the U.S. you might not know anyone who uses WhatsApp nevertheless it has over a billion users and is the default messenger app in many countries.
    - argonaut 10y ago
      That's irrelevant. It's a positive filter, not a negative one (I didn't claim the absence of everyone using it indicates lack of success).
  - verbify 10y ago
    > I thought Snapchat was obviously going to succeed 4 years ago when I was still in college - 70% of the people I knew in college were using it. I've no idea when you were in college, but if 70% of the people around you were using it, I presume it was already successful.
    - argonaut 10y ago
      Yes. You would have no idea of this reading Hacker News threads about Snapchat 4 years ago, though.
  - manquer 10y ago
    having a user base and monetizing and succeeding as a profitable business are not the same, this was not much after the 08 crunch , there could have been a repeat of 2000s bubble, VC money could have dried up, sure guessing it would work out was cool and all, it certainly wasn't the obvious outcome
mars4rp 10y ago
it would have failed if it wasn't for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Power_Ventures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Power_Ventur.... Government and regulations always protect monopolies!
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  Your link doesn't work since the '.' fell off the end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Power_Ventures,_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Power_Ventur.... And I'd hardly call Facebook a monopoly in 2009 when that case was decided. I think Myspace still had more users at that time.
  - Macha 10y ago
    The same happened to yours. A bug in HN's truncation, I guess?
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      Yep, must be.. I doubled up the period in my comment and it looks like that fixed it.
nothrabannosir 10y ago
> This is why I'm convinced that people should honestly share like 1% of what they are really thinking in comments. Yeah, there might be a 1% chance that Instagram would succeed, but do you really want to look like the idiot doubting it could ever happen, with your comment immortalized on the world wide web five years later when you're proven wrong? The world has enough silent cowards. Give me an outspoken person who puts their money (/honour) where their mouth is, any day.
- bigfoig 10y ago
  I'm fairly certain approximately 100% of the people in that thread who thought the IG move was a bad idea also did absolutely nothing to bet AGAINST the move they were so sure about in the end they were just speculators speculating My point is not that "commenting on the internet is dumb cause it might make you look like an idiot" but the fact is that probably zero of the detractors in the HN link posted had anything other than an uninformed opinion
  - nothrabannosir 10y ago
    That's a fine point, but it's not what you said. You said people should keep their opinions to themselves, for fear of "looking like an idiot". That's the worst possible reason to not speak out. If you want people to shut up because their uninformed opinions annoy you, that's something else. Say that, and take the bad karma that comes with it.
  - Jweb_Guru 10y ago
    You're much too sane for this place, get out while you still can.
forgetsusername 10y ago
You consider Facebook a blue chip stock?
kombucha2 10y ago
I was wrong about FB's valuation way back when during their IPO. I remember thinking, no way FB is worth that. On a side note, does anyone know off-hand how Zuck was able to accomplish such remarkable retention of control as a founder of FB? So many founder's have lost control of their companies, yet Zuckerberg was able to use an arcane stock set-up to do this?
- majani 10y ago
  Facebook was a rocketship of organic growth, which gave Zuck tons of leverage with investors. He was also advised on retaining control by experienced guys like Sean Parker. Him moving to Silicon Valley also helped, because it has the most founder friendly investors on the planet.

by bigfoig 10y ago

macspoofing 10y ago

In hindsight everything looks obvious. At the time the failure of MySpace was still fresh, Facebook had not monitized its service and it wasn't obvious that chat clients like WhatsApp and SnapChat would (or could) get these insane multi-billion valuations.

argonaut 10y ago
I think it was obvious. I remember being in college during the acquisition and thinking it was obviously a smart deal. And Instagram was pursued hotly, so many tech insiders thought it was a good deal too. People on Hacker News are only now just coming around to Snapchat, but I thought Snapchat was obviously going to succeed 4 years ago when I was still in college - 70% of the people I knew in college were using it. You might object to this and claim that other apps (which are not guaranteed successes now) like Yik Yak should have been similarly "obvious" to me at the time - but that's just not true. I didn't know anyone who used other social media apps (like Yik Yak, etc.) at the time as much as Snapchat (if they did, they kept it to themselves). But when it comes to social apps, there's just something about Hacker News being particularly closed-minded. Even in the face of overwhelming usage, I still see a solid plurality of cynical HN comments about any given social app.
- b2600 10y ago
  I don't object to the veracity of your claims but I would note that "it's what everyone around me is using" doesn't scale very well. For example, if you're from the U.S. you might not know anyone who uses WhatsApp nevertheless it has over a billion users and is the default messenger app in many countries.
  - argonaut 10y ago
    That's irrelevant. It's a positive filter, not a negative one (I didn't claim the absence of everyone using it indicates lack of success).
- verbify 10y ago
  > I thought Snapchat was obviously going to succeed 4 years ago when I was still in college - 70% of the people I knew in college were using it. I've no idea when you were in college, but if 70% of the people around you were using it, I presume it was already successful.
  - argonaut 10y ago
    Yes. You would have no idea of this reading Hacker News threads about Snapchat 4 years ago, though.
- manquer 10y ago
  having a user base and monetizing and succeeding as a profitable business are not the same, this was not much after the 08 crunch , there could have been a repeat of 2000s bubble, VC money could have dried up, sure guessing it would work out was cool and all, it certainly wasn't the obvious outcome

mars4rp 10y ago

it would have failed if it wasn't for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Power_Ventures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Power_Ventur.... Government and regulations always protect monopolies!

mikeyouse 10y ago
Your link doesn't work since the '.' fell off the end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Power_Ventures,_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Power_Ventur.... And I'd hardly call Facebook a monopoly in 2009 when that case was decided. I think Myspace still had more users at that time.
- Macha 10y ago
  The same happened to yours. A bug in HN's truncation, I guess?
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    Yep, must be.. I doubled up the period in my comment and it looks like that fixed it.

nothrabannosir 10y ago

> This is why I'm convinced that people should honestly share like 1% of what they are really thinking in comments. Yeah, there might be a 1% chance that Instagram would succeed, but do you really want to look like the idiot doubting it could ever happen, with your comment immortalized on the world wide web five years later when you're proven wrong? The world has enough silent cowards. Give me an outspoken person who puts their money (/honour) where their mouth is, any day.

bigfoig 10y ago
I'm fairly certain approximately 100% of the people in that thread who thought the IG move was a bad idea also did absolutely nothing to bet AGAINST the move they were so sure about in the end they were just speculators speculating My point is not that "commenting on the internet is dumb cause it might make you look like an idiot" but the fact is that probably zero of the detractors in the HN link posted had anything other than an uninformed opinion
- nothrabannosir 10y ago
  That's a fine point, but it's not what you said. You said people should keep their opinions to themselves, for fear of "looking like an idiot". That's the worst possible reason to not speak out. If you want people to shut up because their uninformed opinions annoy you, that's something else. Say that, and take the bad karma that comes with it.
- Jweb_Guru 10y ago
  You're much too sane for this place, get out while you still can.

forgetsusername 10y ago

You consider Facebook a blue chip stock?

kombucha2 10y ago

I was wrong about FB's valuation way back when during their IPO. I remember thinking, no way FB is worth that. On a side note, does anyone know off-hand how Zuck was able to accomplish such remarkable retention of control as a founder of FB? So many founder's have lost control of their companies, yet Zuckerberg was able to use an arcane stock set-up to do this?

majani 10y ago
Facebook was a rocketship of organic growth, which gave Zuck tons of leverage with investors. He was also advised on retaining control by experienced guys like Sean Parker. Him moving to Silicon Valley also helped, because it has the most founder friendly investors on the planet.