I've got a few bones to pick with this post. 1. Its main message, "build things you love" and "let the haters hate" seems to be pretty well-worn at this point.

I've got a few bones to pick with this post. 1. Its main message, "build things you love" and "let the haters hate" seems to be pretty well-worn at this point. There was no value added in the way it was conveyed (no personal story, no anecdotes, no real insights). In fact, there was value subtracted by the jarring, undeveloped thoughts and the use of profanity that was censored in the original story on Businessweek. 2. I don't think anyone dismissed the internet or the iPhone as "incremental" or "trivial" when they first came out. Especially not in the way we often wonder about services like Snapchat and Secret. This seems like quite a silly comparison to me. 3. I don't agree with the idea that the value of a service is solely defined by its user base. User acquisition is only one part of a complex equation. "Hyperexponential growth" is worthless in the long run without a system that can capture and monetize user interest over time. Plenty of fads come and go: -Planking -Swag, #YOLO -Pet Rocks -Livestrong Bracelets -Pets.com (symptom of the .com investing fad) My opinion is that these fads add very little value relative to advances in healthcare, infrastructure, education, and technology that have made quantifiable progress towards a better quality of life for billions of people all over the world. Fads are like tumors that grow off of cultural and psychological excess.