4 ms·

I’m skeptical that the same patterns we saw in the early 2000s are going to play out again. Last time, tech was in its infancy. There was a small universe of p

by kbos87 3y ago

I’m skeptical that the same patterns we saw in the early 2000s are going to play out again. Last time, tech was in its infancy. There was a small universe of people who understood baseline concepts like getting to product market fit, how to measure and implement growth patterns, etc etc. Today these are practically household concepts, and they have been for years. There aren’t a few hundred other people in SV you are competing against, it’s the rest of the world. On top of that, there’s a tried and true playbook that large tech companies quickly put to use to capture any remotely adjacent areas of product market fit. I’m not saying there won’t be startups - there are today of course - but it also seems like there’s a lot of wishful thinking going on. (Among founders, VCs, and billionaires who made their money in the early 2000s too. It shocks me that many of them haven’t realized that the playbook that made them money in 2008 doesn’t make them special in 2023.) Tech has been professionalized and nothing is nearly as easy as it once was.

bradhe 3y ago
Agreed. The type of employee at big tech today is a lot different than what once was. But given the volume perhaps the output will be similar.
fmajid 3y ago
I think you underestimate the effects of bureaucracy and sclerosis at large companies like Google, and the upcoming crackdown like the EU's DMA and DSA. Just look at how OpenAI basically stole Google's lunch.
- fullshark 3y ago
  Too early to spike the football over that, OpenAI got outfoxed on Dall-E illustratively and ChatGPT's best chance for monetization remains as a feature for MSFT services, not an independent entity.
  - soperj 3y ago
    You could have said the same about google originally when Yahoo was using google to provide their search services.
    - afthonos 3y ago
      You could also have said that about Altavista, and you would’ve been right. Like GP said, it’s too early to tell.
      - fmajid 3y ago
        Altavista wasn't a startup, it was a spinoff from DEC, a company that had its own issues with sales at the time, which led to their ignominious takeover by HP.
dpflan 3y ago
Perhaps there will be higher quality startups… I don’t know, it feels like prior to 2020, the market was in overdrive and everyone’s ideas were getting funding under the hype growth path to monopoly strategy. And during this time, how many Forbes 30 under 30 people have been found to be incredible frauds, some of the biggest economics has seen? With money not as cheap, I do wonder what will happen. The startup “rules” for 2023+ seem a bit different now and hyper growth tactics may not work as well now (or be incentivized as much until late stage growth rounds…but I’m not an investor). Anyway, I’ll now lean back in my arm-chair…
gretch 3y ago
> There was a small universe of people who understood baseline concepts like getting to product market fit, how to measure and implement growth patterns, etc etc. I'm a PM and I think veeerrrryyy few people understand this, including many of my fellow PMs. I think it's like reading a book about how to pitch a baseball. Knowledge and application are entirely different. Someone might be able to regurgitate the theory on how to achieve product-market fit, but put them in the driver seat of a real product and lots of people flounder. One of the most common mistakes is simply delusion - the believe that your product is 'there' when it's not. I believe there's a cognitive dissonance that impacts the product owner - you kinda have to believe (or at least outwardly project) that your product is doing well.
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  > I'm a PM and I think veeerrrryyy few people understand this, including many of my fellow PMs. Preach. And the universe of people who can actually do the work to start something and get it to PMF is a pretty small subset of those who understand the concepts in theory.
  - achow 3y ago
    I would even go further and say that those who don't understand Product Market Fit but still can build, learn PMF by stumbling, falling. Same sports analogy- it is better to be someone who can play (but doesn't know the rules) than someone who has encyclopedic knowledge on the said sport but cannot play (physical limitations).
    - idopmstuff 3y ago
      Totally agree. Someone who just understands that you need to go talk to customers and actually try to sell whatever you're building ASAP is going to fare way better as a founder than someone who learned what PMF is during their MBA but doesn't want to get out and do the dirty work.
    - zamnos 3y ago
      What do you mean by "better"? There's room for lots of people to have jobs off the field. Think about all of the support staff we never see on TV during the game. Or off the field even during the game. The announcer/sports commentator, the coach, the physical therapists and doctors, the people that work the grounds. Stephen Curry doesn't work in vacuum and neither does Jeff Dean.
marcosdumay 3y ago
> there’s a tried and true playbook that large tech companies quickly put to use to capture any remotely adjacent areas Hum... The reason why large companies have historically been unable to do that is because nobody in them bothers to do it, not because they don't know how. And one of the consequences of a series of mass layoffs is exactly that people stop caring about things like this.
- pydry 3y ago
  Or, to put it succinctly - Google took off because Yahoo didnt particularly want to be a search engine.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    Oh, Paul Graham (from this site) has a nice history about their ad-selling team in his articles.
- kbos87 3y ago
  There's another set of large players who have sucked all of the air out of what could have otherwise been thriving, competitive categories with many players. Google with search, Amazon with eCommerce, Facebook with social. Yes there are maybe 1-2 counterpoints in each of these spaces, but they've largely been successful at leaving a lot of would be entrepreneurs avoiding these huge spaces because they know they can't compete.
WinLychee 3y ago
The same feeling of tech 10-15 years ago is what the current AI scene feels like. There's definitely an emphasis on higher education now, but outside of that look at what hackers have been able to accomplish just solo. It's a burgeoning scene with the potential to be as impactful as software was. Except now instead of if/else, it's going to be inscrutable arrays of numbers representing learned programs :D. It seems super fun and the barrier to entry is a lot lower than people think!

by kbos87 3y ago

bradhe 3y ago

Agreed. The type of employee at big tech today is a lot different than what once was. But given the volume perhaps the output will be similar.

fmajid 3y ago

I think you underestimate the effects of bureaucracy and sclerosis at large companies like Google, and the upcoming crackdown like the EU's DMA and DSA. Just look at how OpenAI basically stole Google's lunch.

fullshark 3y ago
Too early to spike the football over that, OpenAI got outfoxed on Dall-E illustratively and ChatGPT's best chance for monetization remains as a feature for MSFT services, not an independent entity.
- soperj 3y ago
  You could have said the same about google originally when Yahoo was using google to provide their search services.
  - afthonos 3y ago
    You could also have said that about Altavista, and you would’ve been right. Like GP said, it’s too early to tell.
    - fmajid 3y ago
      Altavista wasn't a startup, it was a spinoff from DEC, a company that had its own issues with sales at the time, which led to their ignominious takeover by HP.

dpflan 3y ago

Perhaps there will be higher quality startups… I don’t know, it feels like prior to 2020, the market was in overdrive and everyone’s ideas were getting funding under the hype growth path to monopoly strategy. And during this time, how many Forbes 30 under 30 people have been found to be incredible frauds, some of the biggest economics has seen? With money not as cheap, I do wonder what will happen. The startup “rules” for 2023+ seem a bit different now and hyper growth tactics may not work as well now (or be incentivized as much until late stage growth rounds…but I’m not an investor). Anyway, I’ll now lean back in my arm-chair…

gretch 3y ago

> There was a small universe of people who understood baseline concepts like getting to product market fit, how to measure and implement growth patterns, etc etc. I'm a PM and I think veeerrrryyy few people understand this, including many of my fellow PMs. I think it's like reading a book about how to pitch a baseball. Knowledge and application are entirely different. Someone might be able to regurgitate the theory on how to achieve product-market fit, but put them in the driver seat of a real product and lots of people flounder. One of the most common mistakes is simply delusion - the believe that your product is 'there' when it's not. I believe there's a cognitive dissonance that impacts the product owner - you kinda have to believe (or at least outwardly project) that your product is doing well.

idopmstuff 3y ago
> I'm a PM and I think veeerrrryyy few people understand this, including many of my fellow PMs. Preach. And the universe of people who can actually do the work to start something and get it to PMF is a pretty small subset of those who understand the concepts in theory.
- achow 3y ago
  I would even go further and say that those who don't understand Product Market Fit but still can build, learn PMF by stumbling, falling. Same sports analogy- it is better to be someone who can play (but doesn't know the rules) than someone who has encyclopedic knowledge on the said sport but cannot play (physical limitations).
  - idopmstuff 3y ago
    Totally agree. Someone who just understands that you need to go talk to customers and actually try to sell whatever you're building ASAP is going to fare way better as a founder than someone who learned what PMF is during their MBA but doesn't want to get out and do the dirty work.
  - zamnos 3y ago
    What do you mean by "better"? There's room for lots of people to have jobs off the field. Think about all of the support staff we never see on TV during the game. Or off the field even during the game. The announcer/sports commentator, the coach, the physical therapists and doctors, the people that work the grounds. Stephen Curry doesn't work in vacuum and neither does Jeff Dean.

marcosdumay 3y ago

> there’s a tried and true playbook that large tech companies quickly put to use to capture any remotely adjacent areas Hum... The reason why large companies have historically been unable to do that is because nobody in them bothers to do it, not because they don't know how. And one of the consequences of a series of mass layoffs is exactly that people stop caring about things like this.

pydry 3y ago
Or, to put it succinctly - Google took off because Yahoo didnt particularly want to be a search engine.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Oh, Paul Graham (from this site) has a nice history about their ad-selling team in his articles.
kbos87 3y ago
There's another set of large players who have sucked all of the air out of what could have otherwise been thriving, competitive categories with many players. Google with search, Amazon with eCommerce, Facebook with social. Yes there are maybe 1-2 counterpoints in each of these spaces, but they've largely been successful at leaving a lot of would be entrepreneurs avoiding these huge spaces because they know they can't compete.

WinLychee 3y ago

The same feeling of tech 10-15 years ago is what the current AI scene feels like. There's definitely an emphasis on higher education now, but outside of that look at what hackers have been able to accomplish just solo. It's a burgeoning scene with the potential to be as impactful as software was. Except now instead of if/else, it's going to be inscrutable arrays of numbers representing learned programs :D. It seems super fun and the barrier to entry is a lot lower than people think!