5 ms·

>I don’t know who puts hippies in charge of these companies. "These companies" being the ones the hippies start. The same ones guys like this don't know how to

by fartron 17y ago

>I don’t know who puts hippies in charge of these companies. "These companies" being the ones the hippies start. The same ones guys like this don't know how to start either. Let's keep guys like this away from "these companies."

metaguri 17y ago
Wow. Yeah. Nobody "put" them in charge of this company. Perhaps "hippies" have the vision to create something that will change the world (a bold claim about twitter... but at least somewhat true already) and "non-hippies" have the pragmatism to make a copycat mmorpg that will rake in a few million bucks but no one will remember next year. When I think about what spurred the creation of a memorable technology that changed the course of human history, I see vision, not monetization. (Ford => a car for each family, Edison => light in every home, Apple => easy to use computers, Google => bigger, better search)
- blader 17y ago
  "I see vision, not monetization." You see years of great PR, not reality. Most founding myths are the result of gross simplification and made-up mythology which the are designed to be interesting and consumable for mass media. (see Amazon, eBay, YouTube, PayPal etc).
  - jimboyoungblood 17y ago
    So cynical, yet so true.
teej 17y ago
To be fair, Jason Bailey's company is profitable and doing 8 digits in revenue a year. How much is Twitter making again?
- tremendo 17y ago
  How much is Twitter making again? What does it matter? They're certainly not starving (yet). These hippies started up something from scratch, are having an incredibly fun time doing it, getting funded, making waves and headlines and may yet make money. Ev already got loads of cash from selling Blogger before. And wasn't that the same question people asked of Amazon and Google before? How much were they making two years after launch?
  - blader 17y ago
    Amazon: 15.7 million in 1997 Google: 86.4 million in 2001
  - dan_the_welder 17y ago
    It does matter. Venture capital is not infinite and it will eventually get tired of investing in things that just turn out to be popular ideas that can't generate revenue. Then they won't invest in your real deal because they have been burned too many times.
- menloparkbum 17y ago
  His comments don't even make sense. He calls twitter hippies because they aren't starting a virtual currency business that his company can glom onto. If his company is so loaded, why doesn't he start his own virtual currency business? Oh right, because starting a virtual currency is hugely risky, full of regulatory hassle and not very interesting. If anyone should start a virtual currency, it is the game company that is going to use the virtual currency! (Like you know, MMORPGS already do...)

by fartron 17y ago

metaguri 17y ago

Wow. Yeah. Nobody "put" them in charge of this company. Perhaps "hippies" have the vision to create something that will change the world (a bold claim about twitter... but at least somewhat true already) and "non-hippies" have the pragmatism to make a copycat mmorpg that will rake in a few million bucks but no one will remember next year. When I think about what spurred the creation of a memorable technology that changed the course of human history, I see vision, not monetization. (Ford => a car for each family, Edison => light in every home, Apple => easy to use computers, Google => bigger, better search)

blader 17y ago
"I see vision, not monetization." You see years of great PR, not reality. Most founding myths are the result of gross simplification and made-up mythology which the are designed to be interesting and consumable for mass media. (see Amazon, eBay, YouTube, PayPal etc).
- jimboyoungblood 17y ago
  So cynical, yet so true.

teej 17y ago

To be fair, Jason Bailey's company is profitable and doing 8 digits in revenue a year. How much is Twitter making again?

tremendo 17y ago
How much is Twitter making again? What does it matter? They're certainly not starving (yet). These hippies started up something from scratch, are having an incredibly fun time doing it, getting funded, making waves and headlines and may yet make money. Ev already got loads of cash from selling Blogger before. And wasn't that the same question people asked of Amazon and Google before? How much were they making two years after launch?
- blader 17y ago
  Amazon: 15.7 million in 1997 Google: 86.4 million in 2001
- dan_the_welder 17y ago
  It does matter. Venture capital is not infinite and it will eventually get tired of investing in things that just turn out to be popular ideas that can't generate revenue. Then they won't invest in your real deal because they have been burned too many times.
menloparkbum 17y ago
His comments don't even make sense. He calls twitter hippies because they aren't starting a virtual currency business that his company can glom onto. If his company is so loaded, why doesn't he start his own virtual currency business? Oh right, because starting a virtual currency is hugely risky, full of regulatory hassle and not very interesting. If anyone should start a virtual currency, it is the game company that is going to use the virtual currency! (Like you know, MMORPGS already do...)