6 ms·

What is this telling us about the stuff he writes with full conviction today?

by baxtr 2y ago

teekert 2y ago
That nobody can predict the future? However, there are people that have the intellect and the information to do it better than others. Btw, it contains stuff like this "The third cause of Microsoft's death was broadband Internet. Anyone who cares can have fast Internet access now. And the bigger the pipe to the server, the less you need the desktop.". Microsoft (or Satya did) also predicted the future, or read this post, and refocused (to online service such as MS365). There still correct, insightful stuff in this post. There is also "They still think they can write software in house. Maybe they can, by the standards of the desktop world. But that world ended a few years ago." also radically different now they have GitHub and WSL, etc
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
roenxi 2y ago
Nothing. It is a well written essay and makes some interesting points about how Microsoft was defanged. What frame are you trying to put here? Do you think there is something wrong with the essay?
- intermerda 2y ago
  Of course not, as we all know dead companies add trillions in market cap all the time.
discordance 2y ago
That times change? This was a lot more accurate when it was published in 2007.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  I think a key aspect of calling a thing "dead" is that it implies permanency. In other words, it can't have been more accurate in 2007 if it isn't accurate now, which it appears to not be. Maybe if pg had said "irrelevant" instead. (Others have pointed out that 2007 wasn't even a particularly bad year for MSFT.)
ninetyninenine 2y ago
It tells us that he’s only human. That’s what fans of him will say and they’re right. The problem is his fans subconsciously treat Paul graham as if he’s more right and more wise than a normal human. Makes sense given where we are. This incubator is founded by him so there’s a bit of that irrational hero worship there.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > The problem is his fans subconsciously treat Paul graham as if he’s more right and more wise than a normal human. In quite some essays, Paul Graham portraits himself this way. You will either be annoyed by this, or you will like his essays. In the latter case, you will likely self-select yourself for this unwitting bias.
doppp 2y ago
That just because someone is a plutocrat doesn't make them experts in all things. We should not idolize celebrities and not accept their hot takes wholesale. Be wary of ultracrepidarians.
- autonomousErwin 2y ago
  plutocrat is newly discovered word of the day.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
    plutocrat, plutocracy. kakistocracy, kakistocrat.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > That just because someone is a plutocrat doesn't make them experts in all things. Of course. This is why you go to a university to learn to analyze the evidence for a claimed statement as scientifically as possible instead of practicing hero worship.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  He's not a plutocrat.
mattmaroon 2y ago
The part about startups is still true today. You don't fear Microsoft competing with you. Or really Google anymore.
virgilp 2y ago
Read all of it. Go beyond just the title, and it should tell you that Paul Graham was more right than wrong with this one. - Google was, for a while, the "gorilla in the room" - their decline is recent. But Paul Graham got it right, that Google was more scary than MS. - Microsoft was "dead" in 2007, same as Apple was before Steve Jobs came back. The revival started with Satya Nadella, 7 years later. It is still a shadow of its former self, MS dominated the industry like no other player ever did (or is likely to do, again). - The 4 forces that lead to MS' demise are likely spot-on. And again "demise" in the same sense of IBM, "still exists, still makes money, nobody really cares". Did the "all ycombinator founders use Macs" rub me the wrong way, when used as an argument as he did? Yes. But I also kinda' understand it(*), even though I still think he should've steered away from that argument. (*) you can interpret it in the sense of "the future is already here - it is just very unevenly distributed"; that's probably what he meant. He knew full well the market share.
- JohnHaugeland 2y ago
  [flagged]
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  > - The 4 forces that lead to MS' demise are likely spot-on. And again "demise" in the same sense of IBM, "still exists, still makes money, nobody really cares". IBM shareholders and employees can only dream their demise was in the same sense as Microsoft’s.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  The problem with "all use Macs" is that Apple has always been a great hardware company with an underfunded software side. MacOS has so many problems or unsupported features it isn't funny, while Windows was fine. >> I never used Microsoft software, so it only affected me indirectly Hmm. The lesson here is probably don't assume you understand a competitor's strengths and weaknesses via secondhand experience. And the things MacOS historically did better, having a shell and integrating with unix-like software, have been evened with PowerShell/.NET, WSL2, and HyperV. Furthermore, a few companies started making Windows laptops that weren't bricks. While Apple's software budget is now mostly iOS/device-focused.
dtquad 2y ago
He was wrong about Microsoft's death but correct about how AJAX making web apps feel more desktop-like would remove Microsoft's dominance in many categories and niches.
- caspper69 2y ago
  As a bit of trivia (because web apps have clearly outpaced native/desktop for a long while now), who was it that invented the XMLHttpRequest that formed the basis for AJAX? The Outlook Web team @ Microsoft; it shipped with IE5. I have a very complicated history with Microsoft products, but they have introduced a lot of technologies over the years that we all use, even die-hard MS haters.
bambax 2y ago
He just predicts what he wishes should happen... like most people. Makes him very ordinary.
flippyhead 2y ago
Not very much. Who among is ever ALWAYS right? You have to consider his OVERALL accuracy.
throwawayffffas 2y ago
That 18 years are a long time, and companies can pivot and stay relevant. He was right about everything he said. The people at Microsoft agreed and here we are now. Todays Microsoft is not the same as 2007, back then it was windows, excel, exchange etc. Nowdays its Azure and cloud services. The only thing they tried and failed, that would make them a real dangerous company was mobile.

What is this telling us about the stuff he writes with full conviction today?

by baxtr 2y ago

What is this telling us about the stuff he writes with full conviction today?

That nobody can predict the future? However, there are people that have the intellect and the information to do it better than others. Btw, it contains stuff like this "The third cause of Microsoft's death was broadband Internet. Anyone who cares can have fast Internet access now. And the bigger the pipe to the server, the less you need the desktop.". Microsoft (or Satya did) also predicted the future, or read this post, and refocused (to online service such as MS365). There still correct, insightful stuff in this post. There is also "They still think they can write software in house. Maybe they can, by the standards of the desktop world. But that world ended a few years ago." also radically different now they have GitHub and WSL, etc

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

roenxi 2y ago

Nothing. It is a well written essay and makes some interesting points about how Microsoft was defanged. What frame are you trying to put here? Do you think there is something wrong with the essay?

intermerda 2y ago
Of course not, as we all know dead companies add trillions in market cap all the time.

discordance 2y ago

That times change? This was a lot more accurate when it was published in 2007.

woodruffw 2y ago
I think a key aspect of calling a thing "dead" is that it implies permanency. In other words, it can't have been more accurate in 2007 if it isn't accurate now, which it appears to not be. Maybe if pg had said "irrelevant" instead. (Others have pointed out that 2007 wasn't even a particularly bad year for MSFT.)

ninetyninenine 2y ago

It tells us that he’s only human. That’s what fans of him will say and they’re right. The problem is his fans subconsciously treat Paul graham as if he’s more right and more wise than a normal human. Makes sense given where we are. This incubator is founded by him so there’s a bit of that irrational hero worship there.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> The problem is his fans subconsciously treat Paul graham as if he’s more right and more wise than a normal human. In quite some essays, Paul Graham portraits himself this way. You will either be annoyed by this, or you will like his essays. In the latter case, you will likely self-select yourself for this unwitting bias.

doppp 2y ago

That just because someone is a plutocrat doesn't make them experts in all things. We should not idolize celebrities and not accept their hot takes wholesale. Be wary of ultracrepidarians.

autonomousErwin 2y ago
plutocrat is newly discovered word of the day.
- SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
  plutocrat, plutocracy. kakistocracy, kakistocrat.
aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> That just because someone is a plutocrat doesn't make them experts in all things. Of course. This is why you go to a university to learn to analyze the evidence for a claimed statement as scientifically as possible instead of practicing hero worship.
robertlagrant 2y ago
He's not a plutocrat.

mattmaroon 2y ago

The part about startups is still true today. You don't fear Microsoft competing with you. Or really Google anymore.

virgilp 2y ago

Read all of it. Go beyond just the title, and it should tell you that Paul Graham was more right than wrong with this one. - Google was, for a while, the "gorilla in the room" - their decline is recent. But Paul Graham got it right, that Google was more scary than MS. - Microsoft was "dead" in 2007, same as Apple was before Steve Jobs came back. The revival started with Satya Nadella, 7 years later. It is still a shadow of its former self, MS dominated the industry like no other player ever did (or is likely to do, again). - The 4 forces that lead to MS' demise are likely spot-on. And again "demise" in the same sense of IBM, "still exists, still makes money, nobody really cares". Did the "all ycombinator founders use Macs" rub me the wrong way, when used as an argument as he did? Yes. But I also kinda' understand it(*), even though I still think he should've steered away from that argument. (*) you can interpret it in the sense of "the future is already here - it is just very unevenly distributed"; that's probably what he meant. He knew full well the market share.

JohnHaugeland 2y ago
[flagged]
lotsofpulp 2y ago
> - The 4 forces that lead to MS' demise are likely spot-on. And again "demise" in the same sense of IBM, "still exists, still makes money, nobody really cares". IBM shareholders and employees can only dream their demise was in the same sense as Microsoft’s.
ethbr1 2y ago
The problem with "all use Macs" is that Apple has always been a great hardware company with an underfunded software side. MacOS has so many problems or unsupported features it isn't funny, while Windows was fine. >> I never used Microsoft software, so it only affected me indirectly Hmm. The lesson here is probably don't assume you understand a competitor's strengths and weaknesses via secondhand experience. And the things MacOS historically did better, having a shell and integrating with unix-like software, have been evened with PowerShell/.NET, WSL2, and HyperV. Furthermore, a few companies started making Windows laptops that weren't bricks. While Apple's software budget is now mostly iOS/device-focused.

dtquad 2y ago

He was wrong about Microsoft's death but correct about how AJAX making web apps feel more desktop-like would remove Microsoft's dominance in many categories and niches.

caspper69 2y ago
As a bit of trivia (because web apps have clearly outpaced native/desktop for a long while now), who was it that invented the XMLHttpRequest that formed the basis for AJAX? The Outlook Web team @ Microsoft; it shipped with IE5. I have a very complicated history with Microsoft products, but they have introduced a lot of technologies over the years that we all use, even die-hard MS haters.

bambax 2y ago

He just predicts what he wishes should happen... like most people. Makes him very ordinary.

flippyhead 2y ago

Not very much. Who among is ever ALWAYS right? You have to consider his OVERALL accuracy.

throwawayffffas 2y ago

That 18 years are a long time, and companies can pivot and stay relevant. He was right about everything he said. The people at Microsoft agreed and here we are now. Todays Microsoft is not the same as 2007, back then it was windows, excel, exchange etc. Nowdays its Azure and cloud services. The only thing they tried and failed, that would make them a real dangerous company was mobile.