4 ms·

From the article, "Those relatively comfortable “problems” of modern life have already been solved to death, beginning with Alexander Bell and ending (sort of,

From the article, "Those relatively comfortable “problems” of modern life have already been solved to death, beginning with Alexander Bell and ending (sort of, for now) with Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Many of the apps we have nowadays — the successful ones, at least — revolve around game mechanics, addiction, self-reference, and narcissism. Even apps I use and actually like quite a lot fall into this category." A more charitable reading would take it to mean that the problem of social connection is important, but it's been adequately addressed by Facebook, and /new/ startups shouldn't focus on it.

iamwil 16y ago
Well. Sometimes, you can only best solve problems you understand. And those that you understand best are usually the ones you experience yourself. Many of us have the luxury of being healthy and well-fed, so that's not the problems we focus on. And were this written in 2004, would you have said social connection is adequately addressed by Friendster and MySpace? Just as Alta Vista was not the last word on search (nor is Google for that matter), Facebook is not the last word on Social Networks. I think there's something to be said, however, about digging by following your own sense of curiosity and intuition about good problems to solve, instead of seeing where everyone else is digging and just digging there. Use your noggin and explore. If it happens that no one else is digging there, so be it. And if that's what the OP is encouraging, then I'm all for that. But I don't feel there's a need to discount the current range of problems being solved.
waterlesscloud 16y ago
The most charitable reading I can give it still has it missing the point and not understanding what it is that's being built up with all these companies. Facebook, as I've said, restores and maintains social connections. This is absolutely not a minor thing, it's life-altering. Perhaps it's too early on in the process to understand that, but 10 or 20 years from now, everyone will get it when they look at who has been around and what they've shared as experiences. Twitter is the global hive-mind. It tracks what everyone in the world is thinking about, or at least it or its successor will when extends its reach that far. Yes, most of that is shallow, because most of what most of us think about is shallow. Duh. That's sort of by definition if you think that through for five minutes. If we were all deeper, then the norm would be redefined and we'd all seem shallow again. Twitter succeeds at capturing the hive-mind specifically because it is so short. Your immediate thoughts are immediate, they're bite sized. The format matches the format of your thinking. There's value in knowing what people are thinking, though of course that value will be applied in different ways. Foursquare is a few things. One, it's designed as a universal customer loyalty system on its primary level. I suppose if you think commerce is of necessity shallow, you can dismiss this as meaningless. Of course, it does give the small niche businesses a tool to level the playing field, but even that's probably not enough for some. But what about this- it's also restoring a sense of place to urban and suburban environments. There's a trackable history of who was where and when. It's not as disjointed as it was, there's a throughline. "Oh", you might say, "Bob goes to the same coffee shop I do, but three hours later". Now you're closer to Bob, and the coffee shop has more history for you. Yeah, ok, none of this is curing cancer, but it does matter, it does make a difference, and it does improve people's lives. You can tell me it's meaningless, but you're wrong.
- moultano 16y ago
  I buy your argument for Facebook and twitter, but not foursquare. Foursquare is structured like an MMO, and needs to be to get people to use it.
- adbachman 16y ago
  > It tracks what everyone in the world is thinking about I think her point was that it doesn't track what everyone in the world is thinking about. It tracks what everyone wealthy enough to have the free time to commit to maintaining their social network presence is thinking about. > universal customer loyalty system 2.4 billion people (about a quarter of the planet) make less than $1000 year. Only 500 million people's income exceeds $11,500 a year. (http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/income.php http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/income.php) It is extremely significant that the businesses she picks on (not saying it's fair to call other folks' life's work pointless) focus on creating narrower and narrower slices of the 500 million. The 90% of the planet (!) that lives on less than $11000 a year is completely untouched by customer loyalty programs and social connections apps. To be clear, I'm not arguing that the businesses you mentioned aren't doing the things you say they are. My life is richer because of the internet and specifically social networking. I am arguing, similar to the author, that the work Silicon Valley seems to be dedicated and that seems to get the most attention is not solving problems most of the world has.

iamwil 16y ago

Well. Sometimes, you can only best solve problems you understand. And those that you understand best are usually the ones you experience yourself. Many of us have the luxury of being healthy and well-fed, so that's not the problems we focus on. And were this written in 2004, would you have said social connection is adequately addressed by Friendster and MySpace? Just as Alta Vista was not the last word on search (nor is Google for that matter), Facebook is not the last word on Social Networks. I think there's something to be said, however, about digging by following your own sense of curiosity and intuition about good problems to solve, instead of seeing where everyone else is digging and just digging there. Use your noggin and explore. If it happens that no one else is digging there, so be it. And if that's what the OP is encouraging, then I'm all for that. But I don't feel there's a need to discount the current range of problems being solved.

waterlesscloud 16y ago

The most charitable reading I can give it still has it missing the point and not understanding what it is that's being built up with all these companies. Facebook, as I've said, restores and maintains social connections. This is absolutely not a minor thing, it's life-altering. Perhaps it's too early on in the process to understand that, but 10 or 20 years from now, everyone will get it when they look at who has been around and what they've shared as experiences. Twitter is the global hive-mind. It tracks what everyone in the world is thinking about, or at least it or its successor will when extends its reach that far. Yes, most of that is shallow, because most of what most of us think about is shallow. Duh. That's sort of by definition if you think that through for five minutes. If we were all deeper, then the norm would be redefined and we'd all seem shallow again. Twitter succeeds at capturing the hive-mind specifically because it is so short. Your immediate thoughts are immediate, they're bite sized. The format matches the format of your thinking. There's value in knowing what people are thinking, though of course that value will be applied in different ways. Foursquare is a few things. One, it's designed as a universal customer loyalty system on its primary level. I suppose if you think commerce is of necessity shallow, you can dismiss this as meaningless. Of course, it does give the small niche businesses a tool to level the playing field, but even that's probably not enough for some. But what about this- it's also restoring a sense of place to urban and suburban environments. There's a trackable history of who was where and when. It's not as disjointed as it was, there's a throughline. "Oh", you might say, "Bob goes to the same coffee shop I do, but three hours later". Now you're closer to Bob, and the coffee shop has more history for you. Yeah, ok, none of this is curing cancer, but it does matter, it does make a difference, and it does improve people's lives. You can tell me it's meaningless, but you're wrong.

moultano 16y ago
I buy your argument for Facebook and twitter, but not foursquare. Foursquare is structured like an MMO, and needs to be to get people to use it.
adbachman 16y ago
> It tracks what everyone in the world is thinking about I think her point was that it doesn't track what everyone in the world is thinking about. It tracks what everyone wealthy enough to have the free time to commit to maintaining their social network presence is thinking about. > universal customer loyalty system 2.4 billion people (about a quarter of the planet) make less than $1000 year. Only 500 million people's income exceeds $11,500 a year. (http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/income.php http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/income.php) It is extremely significant that the businesses she picks on (not saying it's fair to call other folks' life's work pointless) focus on creating narrower and narrower slices of the 500 million. The 90% of the planet (!) that lives on less than $11000 a year is completely untouched by customer loyalty programs and social connections apps. To be clear, I'm not arguing that the businesses you mentioned aren't doing the things you say they are. My life is richer because of the internet and specifically social networking. I am arguing, similar to the author, that the work Silicon Valley seems to be dedicated and that seems to get the most attention is not solving problems most of the world has.