4 ms·

Big innovations from those lists (which I call things that are - or are intended to be - life-changing for a reasonably large number of people): airbnb, asana,

by pbiggar 14y ago

Big innovations from those lists (which I call things that are - or are intended to be - life-changing for a reasonably large number of people): airbnb, asana, box, facebook, github, meteor, picloud, pinterest, skype, stripe, twitter, uber, yourmechanic, discourse, fundersclub, hoteltonight, mint, onekingslane, simple, square, taskrabbit, coursera, groupon, nest, spotify,

jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
For many many people github introduced them to GIT and many of them would still don't know about it if it wasn't for it. Twitter is a more accessible version of RSS feed allowing way easier access to subjects of interest for non-tech-savvy people.
- pbiggar 14y ago
  I think you're underselling twitter: its a completely new communication mechanism by which people can communicate short thoughts directly to their followers. It can be used as a better RSS, but that doesn't account for all the other ways it can be used, everything from celebrity gossip, to starting and managing violent revolutions.
  - eurleif 14y ago
    Huh? RSS couldn't be used to spread celebrity gossip, or news about a violent revolution?
    - pbiggar 14y ago
      I could spread celebrity gossip by telegram; that doesn't mean twitter didnt create something innovative.
  - devdas 14y ago
    IRC over HTTP would be a better analogy?
pron 14y ago
Many of these products may change the lives of a large number of people -- but not by much (though some may have a larger effect than others). So while they might be innovations, I wouldn't call them big. In fact, I think it might be a lot easier to change the lives of many by only a little, than to greatly impact the lives of even a few. I used to feel very strongly about this issue of aiming for truly big stuff, and I agree that increased government involvement (and increased trust of government) is necessary, but I think that doing something really big is just... hard, and very few people can do that. Even large government projects require those rare visionaries. But SV and the startup ecosystem have put the power to make a small change in the hands of many people, and that's quite an achievement. Now we only have to come up with a way to find the few out of those that are truly capable of doing the big things, and help them along.
potatolicious 14y ago
The way I look at it, there are three classes of companies when we talk about this issue. There's the "changes the landscape of the world" level, there's the "massive disruption to a segment", and then there's "incremental improvement on something". None of the companies in this list are, IMO, in the first class. Self-driving cars, insulin injections, freedom from oil, eradication of common diseases, the internet, semiconductors, the smartphone, etc, IMO all fall under this category. The second class is where I see AirBnb, Facebook, Square, and the such. They've turned their respective industries upside down with something genuinely different and new (as opposed to simply executing better at lower cost). IMO the majority of your list belongs in the third class - they're great products, but ultimately they are incremental improvements in their field and have not shown themselves to be disruptive. How has Pinterest changed the world? Or Groupon? Funny anecdote about Groupon - I've talked to some small business owners way back when Groupon was at the tip of everyone's tongues, and it was never perceived as a disruptive force. Business owners considered them an evolution of coupon books, and treated it as a new, alternative marketing channel - it was never truly disruptive. The whole point of the original post is that we're funding an ocean of "class 3" companies, a small handful of "class 2" ones, and basically none in class 1.
silverlake 14y ago
I wouldn't consider any of these "innovations." Your definition implies successful == innovative. By that standard Justin Bieber's music is innovative and modern jazz is not.
- pbiggar 14y ago
  I didnt just pick the successful ones, I went for the ones who changed the world in some way.
10098 14y ago
Github? Seriously?! I'm sorry, this just completely blows my mind. I'd understand if you called git innovation (though the real innovation is distributed version control, and it existed before git, git is just a very good implementation), but calling github "innovation" seriously lowers the bar for that concept. I mean, I love github, but come on, they aren't even the first ones to come up with the idea. SourceForge existed years before them.
- pbiggar 14y ago
  If you think that sourceforge and github are equivalent, you are very mistaken.
  - 10098 14y ago
    While they are not equivalent, they serve to achieve similar goals, and it's fair to compare one to the other. Github may be better, but it's not the point. People will be using github to do the same stuff they used to do on SourceForge. Where's the innovation?
    - pbiggar 14y ago
      Sourceforge is to GitHub as Friendster is to Facebook. Yes, they are kinda the same idea, but GitHub realized that the social element was key, and managed to create a community around open source the way that sourceforge never did (and, I would argue, didn't even know to do).

by pbiggar 14y ago

jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago

For many many people github introduced them to GIT and many of them would still don't know about it if it wasn't for it. Twitter is a more accessible version of RSS feed allowing way easier access to subjects of interest for non-tech-savvy people.

pbiggar 14y ago
I think you're underselling twitter: its a completely new communication mechanism by which people can communicate short thoughts directly to their followers. It can be used as a better RSS, but that doesn't account for all the other ways it can be used, everything from celebrity gossip, to starting and managing violent revolutions.
- eurleif 14y ago
  Huh? RSS couldn't be used to spread celebrity gossip, or news about a violent revolution?
  - pbiggar 14y ago
    I could spread celebrity gossip by telegram; that doesn't mean twitter didnt create something innovative.
- devdas 14y ago
  IRC over HTTP would be a better analogy?

pron 14y ago

Many of these products may change the lives of a large number of people -- but not by much (though some may have a larger effect than others). So while they might be innovations, I wouldn't call them big. In fact, I think it might be a lot easier to change the lives of many by only a little, than to greatly impact the lives of even a few. I used to feel very strongly about this issue of aiming for truly big stuff, and I agree that increased government involvement (and increased trust of government) is necessary, but I think that doing something really big is just... hard, and very few people can do that. Even large government projects require those rare visionaries. But SV and the startup ecosystem have put the power to make a small change in the hands of many people, and that's quite an achievement. Now we only have to come up with a way to find the few out of those that are truly capable of doing the big things, and help them along.

potatolicious 14y ago

The way I look at it, there are three classes of companies when we talk about this issue. There's the "changes the landscape of the world" level, there's the "massive disruption to a segment", and then there's "incremental improvement on something". None of the companies in this list are, IMO, in the first class. Self-driving cars, insulin injections, freedom from oil, eradication of common diseases, the internet, semiconductors, the smartphone, etc, IMO all fall under this category. The second class is where I see AirBnb, Facebook, Square, and the such. They've turned their respective industries upside down with something genuinely different and new (as opposed to simply executing better at lower cost). IMO the majority of your list belongs in the third class - they're great products, but ultimately they are incremental improvements in their field and have not shown themselves to be disruptive. How has Pinterest changed the world? Or Groupon? Funny anecdote about Groupon - I've talked to some small business owners way back when Groupon was at the tip of everyone's tongues, and it was never perceived as a disruptive force. Business owners considered them an evolution of coupon books, and treated it as a new, alternative marketing channel - it was never truly disruptive. The whole point of the original post is that we're funding an ocean of "class 3" companies, a small handful of "class 2" ones, and basically none in class 1.

silverlake 14y ago

I wouldn't consider any of these "innovations." Your definition implies successful == innovative. By that standard Justin Bieber's music is innovative and modern jazz is not.

pbiggar 14y ago
I didnt just pick the successful ones, I went for the ones who changed the world in some way.

10098 14y ago

Github? Seriously?! I'm sorry, this just completely blows my mind. I'd understand if you called git innovation (though the real innovation is distributed version control, and it existed before git, git is just a very good implementation), but calling github "innovation" seriously lowers the bar for that concept. I mean, I love github, but come on, they aren't even the first ones to come up with the idea. SourceForge existed years before them.

pbiggar 14y ago
If you think that sourceforge and github are equivalent, you are very mistaken.
- 10098 14y ago
  While they are not equivalent, they serve to achieve similar goals, and it's fair to compare one to the other. Github may be better, but it's not the point. People will be using github to do the same stuff they used to do on SourceForge. Where's the innovation?
  - pbiggar 14y ago
    Sourceforge is to GitHub as Friendster is to Facebook. Yes, they are kinda the same idea, but GitHub realized that the social element was key, and managed to create a community around open source the way that sourceforge never did (and, I would argue, didn't even know to do).