5 ms·

Frankly, these journalists are part of the problem. Pulling up their publishing history, all you see them writing about is Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microso

Frankly, these journalists are part of the problem. Pulling up their publishing history, all you see them writing about is Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft. In that type of PR environment, it is hard to see other startups rising up unless they raise massive amounts of money which gets them PR. Every year the bar gets higher and you never see them writing about new and exciting companies working on interesting projects on a consistent basis. In the end, most of these tech writers are not journalists, but ghostwriters for the big tech titans.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago
So the real problem isn't global corporations using lobbying power to suppress competition, it's journalists who write boring articles.
- electic 9y ago
  They became big because of the non-stop PR they keep getting. These companies came up in a fair level playing field in the 90s and early 2000s. The article correctly outlines that. However, it is now a self-fulfilling cycle. They get users, they get more PR, they get more users, they get more PR, they get more users. Repeat. They then use that power to also, in parallel, lobby to crush startups. The editorial coverage is part of the problem. This very journalist and others like him, share the blame.
  - taneq 9y ago
    You don't think that them becoming big had something to do with, y'know, their products?
    - Clubber 9y ago
      Initially, yes, then networking effect and shrewd business practices (ensuring barriers to entry) ensure that they stay on top. I mean petroleum to power cars was a great, cheap product when it started as was the incandescent lightbulb. Coal was far more price effective than wood / steam turbines by a long shot. Yet we still use them 100+ years later. Why? Because the people that produce those technologies don't want to go out of business and they do everything their war chests will allow to make sure that won't happen.
    - rdlecler1 9y ago
      Mark Zuckerberg having dinner with some Trump supporters got more press than most startups. So no, it's not always about the product.
      - taneq 9y ago
        And that is, of course, how Facebook became a billion dollar company.
        rdlecler1 9y ago
        The discussion was on assumhnetrical accesss to PR and the feedback loop that creates.
- justicezyx 9y ago
  > Frankly, these journalists are part of the problem. Translate to "So the real problem isn't global corporations" I probably will be downvoted, but you better refine your way of commenting...
  - throwaway91111 9y ago
    Ehh, plenty of blame to go around. I'm happy to see both discussed here.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    I believe electric's post was edited after I replied.
TorKlingberg 9y ago
Browse HN and all you see is Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft.
- gideonparanoid 9y ago
  Don't forget Uber.
gumby 9y ago
I don't think so. The big companies are "interesting" (if you consider news interesting) because they have so many attachment points: many products, many customers, often multiple modes of interaction, including second-order ones like tax. While on the other hand, there are a large number of small companies, typically with one or two products, each of which reaches a small number of people. Quasi-stochastically they get a little mention in the major press, which perhaps helps them a bit. Snapchat, google, FB became big deals before they were written up much, if at all. They made it to the popular press because they had become big deals. Frankly I haven't seen an article in the NYT be successful for any startup I have followed. Perhaps it happens in the specialty press (travel or fashion) which are really just specialty journals whose "articles" have always been what is now called "native advertising"

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

So the real problem isn't global corporations using lobbying power to suppress competition, it's journalists who write boring articles.

electic 9y ago
They became big because of the non-stop PR they keep getting. These companies came up in a fair level playing field in the 90s and early 2000s. The article correctly outlines that. However, it is now a self-fulfilling cycle. They get users, they get more PR, they get more users, they get more PR, they get more users. Repeat. They then use that power to also, in parallel, lobby to crush startups. The editorial coverage is part of the problem. This very journalist and others like him, share the blame.
- taneq 9y ago
  You don't think that them becoming big had something to do with, y'know, their products?
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Initially, yes, then networking effect and shrewd business practices (ensuring barriers to entry) ensure that they stay on top. I mean petroleum to power cars was a great, cheap product when it started as was the incandescent lightbulb. Coal was far more price effective than wood / steam turbines by a long shot. Yet we still use them 100+ years later. Why? Because the people that produce those technologies don't want to go out of business and they do everything their war chests will allow to make sure that won't happen.
  - rdlecler1 9y ago
    Mark Zuckerberg having dinner with some Trump supporters got more press than most startups. So no, it's not always about the product.
    - taneq 9y ago
      And that is, of course, how Facebook became a billion dollar company.
      - rdlecler1 9y ago
        The discussion was on assumhnetrical accesss to PR and the feedback loop that creates.
justicezyx 9y ago
> Frankly, these journalists are part of the problem. Translate to "So the real problem isn't global corporations" I probably will be downvoted, but you better refine your way of commenting...
- throwaway91111 9y ago
  Ehh, plenty of blame to go around. I'm happy to see both discussed here.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  I believe electric's post was edited after I replied.

TorKlingberg 9y ago

Browse HN and all you see is Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft.

gideonparanoid 9y ago
Don't forget Uber.

gumby 9y ago

I don't think so. The big companies are "interesting" (if you consider news interesting) because they have so many attachment points: many products, many customers, often multiple modes of interaction, including second-order ones like tax. While on the other hand, there are a large number of small companies, typically with one or two products, each of which reaches a small number of people. Quasi-stochastically they get a little mention in the major press, which perhaps helps them a bit. Snapchat, google, FB became big deals before they were written up much, if at all. They made it to the popular press because they had become big deals. Frankly I haven't seen an article in the NYT be successful for any startup I have followed. Perhaps it happens in the specialty press (travel or fashion) which are really just specialty journals whose "articles" have always been what is now called "native advertising"