5 ms·
>>But one crucial difference between this boom and the last is that the folks in the last boom had to ship or starve. >Amazing what you can do when you have to
by Helianthus 14y ago
>>But one crucial difference between this boom and the last is that the folks in the last boom had to ship or starve.
>Amazing what you can do when you have to.
It's not any different this time around. We just haven't reached the starvation period.
But it's very, very close.
- tomrod 14y ago> very, very close Why do you think this? What are the signals you're seeing?
- eli_gottlieb 14y agoMost returns on VC are negative, almost all are below-market versus standard investments. EDIT: On the other hand, it's questionable the degree to which the market valuations of regular investments are being pumped up by our capitalism-and-bailouts-induced capital glut.
- Helianthus 14y ago... well, in some sense it's the same thing, isn't it? Facebook's IPO is either symptom of or driving this whole mess.
- Helianthus 14y agoHere's a bit of nonsense logic for you: The social craze was clear with Groupon's blunders and Facebook's IPO. That there is a crash coming should have been--and was--clear then. Ever since then it's only gotten clearer that there's a crash coming, even if those that say "It's soon" were repeatedly proven wrong. In other words, it is asymptotically becoming "sooner" the more and more it's being proven that "soon" isn't actually that "soon." (This is, of course, the nature of predicting events that throw up so many signals.) --- What I mean to say, actually, is that you're asking a pointless question. The signals that indicate "Crash imminent!" have long been fired. When I say it's "very, very close," did you think I mean it's within a year, or within days? From a certain way of looking at it, it's at the moment of _least_ certainty how 'soon' an event will occur that the event becomes very, very likely to occur. Because that's when we're the _most_ certain that it's inevitable, but the least certain how it will happen! --- The answer you probably wanted: Google Reader's collapse makes it devastatingly clear to the tech world that there's a giant gaping opportunity to displace social media. All of it. App.net thinks too small, and the start-up world's programmers--all of them--are sharpening knives. So... will Wednesday work for you?
- tomrod 14y agoWould you mind elaborating why you think App.net thinks too small, and where the market disruption is indicated by how Google Reader collapsed? Understand that I primarily stare at a shell most of the day, so I'm not completely savvy on newer startups. Google Reader shutting down just made me check out newsbeuter sooner rather than later :). App.net just seems like a Twitter competitor with longer strings; what do you see?
- Helianthus 14y agoFacebook in flames. Google Reader's demise is really strong proof that Larry Page is obsessed with Google Plus to the point of depravity. There are alternatives, but that doesn't distract from the point: _Google_, one of the bright centers of the Internet, is behaving with abject incompetence. Google just made a huge mistake. It made that mistake because of a huger mistake in trying to compete with Facebook. People don't like Facebook. The technically illiterate might allow it into their lives, but they have no loyalty to it. However, Facebook is the center of mass for people's online selves. App.net _is_ just a Twitter competitor with longer strings. And in a certain sense it only makes sense that the center of this social media nonsense gets shut down. There'll be a new Facebook soon. Hopefully a better one.
- strandev 14y agoSo what are you doing about it?
- Helianthus 14y agoOh, you know. Writing HN comments.