3 ms·

I think that "back to technology" should be the motto for the next 10 years. Yes, I agree. I am really hoping to see a Flight to Substance. I am doubtful, howe

I think that "back to technology" should be the motto for the next 10 years. Yes, I agree. I am really hoping to see a Flight to Substance. I am doubtful, however, because I think the "cool kids" malignancy-- the VC darlings, the investor in-crowd who all collude on terms-- has taken over the organism. I am very optimistic about the long-term future of the technological economy, but I think there's going to be some short-term bleeding and pain before we get there, because nothing good is going to happen until some established players are removed from power and they won't go down without a fight. The "change the world" bullshit coming from most of these VC darlings is an excuse to underpay and exploit people, especially fresh college kids. Bill Gates is fucking changing the world. Some build-to-flip IUsedThisToilet app that exists to get some idiot a hiring bonus along with his douchey PM job is not.

javert 14y ago
In a free market, nobody truly has power. If they suck, they just cease to matter and can safely be ignored. Only the _competition_ matters, and people who suck usually aren't the competition (if they are, they are easy pickings). Now, none of this applies if we're talking about big business vendor/regulatory lock-in type situations, but that's not the part of the economy I think you're talking about. So what makes you thnk that the current VC "organism" has "power" and that "nothing good is going to happen" until they are removed? I mean, why can't people just ignore them and go do things separately?
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  The problem is that VCs don't really compete with each other at all. They co-fund a lot of deals and it's more important to them, in the long term, that they "get in on" the few blockbuster deals that exist every year, than it is that they make the best investments. So they're not going to piss off another VC who might have access to good deals. The result is that they end up colluding more than they compete, and the result is that entrepreneurs don't get fair terms, but terms set by a VC in-crowd. They also compare notes on who they like and who they don't, and if you turn down a term sheet you're likely to have that VC pick up a phone and dry up interest in other VC firms that are supposed to be his competitors.
  - javert 14y ago
    I think you must be talking about the Silicon Valley VC crowd. I'm sure there are VCs in other places. And if you're right about the Silicon Valley VC crowd, that's a business opportunity for new VCs in that area to set better terms and not collude.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Perfect competition of that kind only exists in markets where the product is fungible and consumers can easily substitute suppliers. Participants in such a market are price takers as you describe. The VC market is more a case of monopolistic competition, or monopsonistic if you prefer.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
orionblastar 14y ago
The problem is the tech industry went to a quantity over quality issue and made a 'good enough' quality that sells despite major bugs and flaws. I think there should be a startup renaissance, to bringing quality back to technology. Like the woodworking rule of "measure twice, cut once" instead of the current "measure once, cut twice." or "don't measure and cut as many times as it takes to get the job done" that some seem to have. When you do a job for quality, you take your time to make sure it is right and there isn't as much pressure. Sure you have a deadline, but if management agrees that more time should be given to do it right the first time, instead of rush it and put stress and pressure on the employee, it might avoid these suicides.

javert 14y ago

In a free market, nobody truly has power. If they suck, they just cease to matter and can safely be ignored. Only the _competition_ matters, and people who suck usually aren't the competition (if they are, they are easy pickings). Now, none of this applies if we're talking about big business vendor/regulatory lock-in type situations, but that's not the part of the economy I think you're talking about. So what makes you thnk that the current VC "organism" has "power" and that "nothing good is going to happen" until they are removed? I mean, why can't people just ignore them and go do things separately?

michaelochurch 14y ago
The problem is that VCs don't really compete with each other at all. They co-fund a lot of deals and it's more important to them, in the long term, that they "get in on" the few blockbuster deals that exist every year, than it is that they make the best investments. So they're not going to piss off another VC who might have access to good deals. The result is that they end up colluding more than they compete, and the result is that entrepreneurs don't get fair terms, but terms set by a VC in-crowd. They also compare notes on who they like and who they don't, and if you turn down a term sheet you're likely to have that VC pick up a phone and dry up interest in other VC firms that are supposed to be his competitors.
- javert 14y ago
  I think you must be talking about the Silicon Valley VC crowd. I'm sure there are VCs in other places. And if you're right about the Silicon Valley VC crowd, that's a business opportunity for new VCs in that area to set better terms and not collude.
anigbrowl 14y ago
Perfect competition of that kind only exists in markets where the product is fungible and consumers can easily substitute suppliers. Participants in such a market are price takers as you describe. The VC market is more a case of monopolistic competition, or monopsonistic if you prefer.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

orionblastar 14y ago

The problem is the tech industry went to a quantity over quality issue and made a 'good enough' quality that sells despite major bugs and flaws. I think there should be a startup renaissance, to bringing quality back to technology. Like the woodworking rule of "measure twice, cut once" instead of the current "measure once, cut twice." or "don't measure and cut as many times as it takes to get the job done" that some seem to have. When you do a job for quality, you take your time to make sure it is right and there isn't as much pressure. Sure you have a deadline, but if management agrees that more time should be given to do it right the first time, instead of rush it and put stress and pressure on the employee, it might avoid these suicides.