5 ms·

This and add disruptive million dollar javascript websites that could've been built with jQuery and some HTML5, stupid shit like an app that sends two character

This and add disruptive million dollar javascript websites that could've been built with jQuery and some HTML5, stupid shit like an app that sends two characters, and entire businesses built on the back of existing social network that almost always ends up getting the rug pulled under them. Money is flowing to people who don't need it and shouldn't have it (Because they don't know what they are doing) based on some weird self-fullfilling prophecies of naive investors (I know what I'm doing I rolled a dice a few times and got lucky) combined with idiots (I'll just burn all this cash and look for new ones or I'll get the most unrealistic valuation possible so I get kicked out of my own company). Quietly, many corners of HN, people are building and making money by bootstrapping. There is no money to burn here, only due dilligence. There is no bail out or connections, only yourself and your employees. There is no chance to make costly mistakes so you focus on making money today. But everywhere you look it seems like we've reinvented the value of money. Money that will be made in the distant unknown future seems to be more valuable than money made today. We are in for some major market correction that's going to evaporate a lot of dreams, jobs, and capital. All so they have a chance at another Uber.

pjc50 11y ago
Money that will be made in the distant unknown future seems to be more valuable than money made today High political and economic stability has brought us to this point. The more uncertain the world is, the more people prefer money today to money tomorrow. But when people have accumulated more wealth than they could concievably spend, and feel safe enough to let it out of their sight, they want to invest. Hence the flood of cheap money. The capital flight from China helps too. Investors are also still believing that they can win the Apple lottery: buy an underappreciated tech company at the right time then watch it take over the world, and stay there forever. I don't think we're in for a 'correction' any time soon. Where else are investors going to put their money? Leave it in a bank earning 0%?
- arielm 11y ago
  I agree. I think the issue isn't that money is being spent but that it's being spent on the wrong ideas. Split that 10m into 5 and help five different founders who have taken their time to really prove their concept and build a real revenue model...
fredkbloggs 11y ago
> idiots (I'll just burn all this cash and look for new ones or I'll get the most unrealistic valuation possible so I get kicked out of my own company) Doesn't sound idiotic to me. So far as anyone has been able to prove, humans live only once. And realistically speaking have about 20 years in which to make money that will determine the level of comfort and luxury they will enjoy for the duration of that single life. If at some point in that 20 years one finds oneself in an environment in which "naive investors" are willing to hand out $10m at a throw on the basis of a physically unworkable idea and a pitch deck, I would strongly advise coming up with physically unworkable ideas and pitch decks. Writing articles about how foolish people are to pursue these ideas does not put money in your wallet, even if it's true.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- arielm 11y ago
  This naive view that if is someone is silly enough to throw money at your silly idea you should take it isn't just hurting the current industry by setting unrealistic expectations but will also be the driving force behind the collapse of the unhealthy capital market in the valley. Unrealistic salaries (that completely ignore any roi calculations), ideas that aren't grounded, and the need to get it all done super fast are what's going to cause a drought in capital for tech and then both good and bad ideas will suffer. I urge you to rethink your statement with the future of the industry in mind, not just a single bank account.
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    Everything you've said is sensible, though I question whether in a cheap money environment investors will stay away if they've been burned. People fall all over themselves to lend money to sovereigns who have defaulted fairly recently, and that at very low interest rates. I would be surprised if people with access to unlimited cheap money will really stay away. That said, even if I agreed with you 100% (and you're certainly right in principle), I would not change my view. That's why I noted that humans live only once and have a short time frame to accumulate money. In the fullness of time, yes, this behavior is harmful. But humans don't live in the fullness of time; they live when they're born. Secure your own future and to hell with the industry's.
onion2k 11y ago
stupid shit like an app that sends two characters It's always worth remembering that it's people who get investment, not companies and certainly not ideas. What we see is the public face, not what's really going on. Yo is a good example of why some people get investment - someone who can take that app and persuade large numbers of people to use it is clearly good at building and marketing things. If they get their idea (not Yo, their actual idea) in front of an investor having proven that they're capable of building a product and taking it to market, then the investor will listen and do the necessary sanity checks and due diligence, and then invest in the next product. The real one, the one that needs investment. Building something that proves you're someone who can build an engaged community of people that you can market other things to is a very good thing for your investment prospects. The fact the thing you built is stupid is of absolutely no consequence.
- david927 11y ago
  Which is the fairy tale that investors tell themselves and it's also impeding innovation. We're not music, we're technology; there's more at stake. Our Mozarts are being left to die in pauper graves while Biebers are inundated in funding to compose their next masterpiece called 'Yo!'. And what's worse is that people like Andreesen used to be innovators and now they are happy to make this all a circus if it makes them just a little more obscenely rich.
  - bryans 11y ago
    > Our Mozarts are being left to die in pauper graves while Biebers are inundated in funding to compose their next masterpiece called 'Yo!'. I don't have anything to add to this, because I find it to be the most tragically accurate portrait of both Western and startup culture I've ever come across. I just wanted to thank you for providing the perfect response when someone next tries to convince me, non-sarcastically, that Color was "a phenomenal idea."
  - onion2k 11y ago
    I'm not sure that's actually true. There are a few examples of investors putting money in to stupid ideas that eventually fail, but there's also plenty of examples of investments in brilliant, world-changing ideas as well. Take Uber as an example - last September they announced that they're creating 50,000 jobs a month[1]. That's incredible and it'll make a real difference in the world. Using Yo as an example of investors impeding innovation just highlights the fact you need to look at a sample of more than one investment to see what's going on. [1] http://www.quora.com/How-many-Uber-drivers-are-there-in-the-world http://www.quora.com/How-many-Uber-drivers-are-there-in-the-...
frankdenbow 11y ago
As a self funded founder I feel you that the stories about what we do are unheralded and we have different challenges than other businesses (good ones that force us to find the right answer quicker). There are businesses that are not self fundable, though and will take massive amounts of investment to make happen. Uber is one since they need to get critical mass of drivers/riders in many cities to take over. uBeam is also one of those companies, as a whole lot of R&D has to be done to take it to market. They have a thesis and if correct will have a big impact and can only be done with some real investment (can you imagine self-funding this??). This seems like the perfect thing to invest in. Its super easy to poke holes in other peoples business but we are also not working with all the information. Let her work!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dang 11y ago
HN does not need more substanceless, generic discussion. Such comments invariably sprout up when there isn't enough actual information to discuss anything concrete. They're like fireweed, except fireweed is pretty.
- curiousjorge 11y ago
  You just described HN in A nutshell. Looks like I've angered the HN gods it's all the way at the bottom now. One step closer to censorship....
  - dang 11y ago
    HN does have much of that, but it also has much that is better. Let's be the kind of people who pick up litter (or at least take care of our own) instead of thinking "this place is a dump anyway".
    - curiousjorge 11y ago
      I don't think that at all. It's just you. If there was no substance then why would people vote for it in the first place? The original article was about how the investments in tech is fucked up and generic to begin with.

pjc50 11y ago

Money that will be made in the distant unknown future seems to be more valuable than money made today High political and economic stability has brought us to this point. The more uncertain the world is, the more people prefer money today to money tomorrow. But when people have accumulated more wealth than they could concievably spend, and feel safe enough to let it out of their sight, they want to invest. Hence the flood of cheap money. The capital flight from China helps too. Investors are also still believing that they can win the Apple lottery: buy an underappreciated tech company at the right time then watch it take over the world, and stay there forever. I don't think we're in for a 'correction' any time soon. Where else are investors going to put their money? Leave it in a bank earning 0%?

arielm 11y ago
I agree. I think the issue isn't that money is being spent but that it's being spent on the wrong ideas. Split that 10m into 5 and help five different founders who have taken their time to really prove their concept and build a real revenue model...

fredkbloggs 11y ago

> idiots (I'll just burn all this cash and look for new ones or I'll get the most unrealistic valuation possible so I get kicked out of my own company) Doesn't sound idiotic to me. So far as anyone has been able to prove, humans live only once. And realistically speaking have about 20 years in which to make money that will determine the level of comfort and luxury they will enjoy for the duration of that single life. If at some point in that 20 years one finds oneself in an environment in which "naive investors" are willing to hand out $10m at a throw on the basis of a physically unworkable idea and a pitch deck, I would strongly advise coming up with physically unworkable ideas and pitch decks. Writing articles about how foolish people are to pursue these ideas does not put money in your wallet, even if it's true.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
arielm 11y ago
This naive view that if is someone is silly enough to throw money at your silly idea you should take it isn't just hurting the current industry by setting unrealistic expectations but will also be the driving force behind the collapse of the unhealthy capital market in the valley. Unrealistic salaries (that completely ignore any roi calculations), ideas that aren't grounded, and the need to get it all done super fast are what's going to cause a drought in capital for tech and then both good and bad ideas will suffer. I urge you to rethink your statement with the future of the industry in mind, not just a single bank account.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  Everything you've said is sensible, though I question whether in a cheap money environment investors will stay away if they've been burned. People fall all over themselves to lend money to sovereigns who have defaulted fairly recently, and that at very low interest rates. I would be surprised if people with access to unlimited cheap money will really stay away. That said, even if I agreed with you 100% (and you're certainly right in principle), I would not change my view. That's why I noted that humans live only once and have a short time frame to accumulate money. In the fullness of time, yes, this behavior is harmful. But humans don't live in the fullness of time; they live when they're born. Secure your own future and to hell with the industry's.

onion2k 11y ago

stupid shit like an app that sends two characters It's always worth remembering that it's people who get investment, not companies and certainly not ideas. What we see is the public face, not what's really going on. Yo is a good example of why some people get investment - someone who can take that app and persuade large numbers of people to use it is clearly good at building and marketing things. If they get their idea (not Yo, their actual idea) in front of an investor having proven that they're capable of building a product and taking it to market, then the investor will listen and do the necessary sanity checks and due diligence, and then invest in the next product. The real one, the one that needs investment. Building something that proves you're someone who can build an engaged community of people that you can market other things to is a very good thing for your investment prospects. The fact the thing you built is stupid is of absolutely no consequence.

david927 11y ago
Which is the fairy tale that investors tell themselves and it's also impeding innovation. We're not music, we're technology; there's more at stake. Our Mozarts are being left to die in pauper graves while Biebers are inundated in funding to compose their next masterpiece called 'Yo!'. And what's worse is that people like Andreesen used to be innovators and now they are happy to make this all a circus if it makes them just a little more obscenely rich.
- bryans 11y ago
  > Our Mozarts are being left to die in pauper graves while Biebers are inundated in funding to compose their next masterpiece called 'Yo!'. I don't have anything to add to this, because I find it to be the most tragically accurate portrait of both Western and startup culture I've ever come across. I just wanted to thank you for providing the perfect response when someone next tries to convince me, non-sarcastically, that Color was "a phenomenal idea."
- onion2k 11y ago
  I'm not sure that's actually true. There are a few examples of investors putting money in to stupid ideas that eventually fail, but there's also plenty of examples of investments in brilliant, world-changing ideas as well. Take Uber as an example - last September they announced that they're creating 50,000 jobs a month[1]. That's incredible and it'll make a real difference in the world. Using Yo as an example of investors impeding innovation just highlights the fact you need to look at a sample of more than one investment to see what's going on. [1] http://www.quora.com/How-many-Uber-drivers-are-there-in-the-world http://www.quora.com/How-many-Uber-drivers-are-there-in-the-...

frankdenbow 11y ago

As a self funded founder I feel you that the stories about what we do are unheralded and we have different challenges than other businesses (good ones that force us to find the right answer quicker). There are businesses that are not self fundable, though and will take massive amounts of investment to make happen. Uber is one since they need to get critical mass of drivers/riders in many cities to take over. uBeam is also one of those companies, as a whole lot of R&D has to be done to take it to market. They have a thesis and if correct will have a big impact and can only be done with some real investment (can you imagine self-funding this??). This seems like the perfect thing to invest in. Its super easy to poke holes in other peoples business but we are also not working with all the information. Let her work!

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dang 11y ago

HN does not need more substanceless, generic discussion. Such comments invariably sprout up when there isn't enough actual information to discuss anything concrete. They're like fireweed, except fireweed is pretty.

curiousjorge 11y ago
You just described HN in A nutshell. Looks like I've angered the HN gods it's all the way at the bottom now. One step closer to censorship....
- dang 11y ago
  HN does have much of that, but it also has much that is better. Let's be the kind of people who pick up litter (or at least take care of our own) instead of thinking "this place is a dump anyway".
  - curiousjorge 11y ago
    I don't think that at all. It's just you. If there was no substance then why would people vote for it in the first place? The original article was about how the investments in tech is fucked up and generic to begin with.