"The momentum is driving a wave of deal envy and trash talking—complete with power plays, personal feuds and turf wars among Wall Street bankers, billionaire speculators and venture-capital veterans."
Sounds like a bubble to me. Anybody remember the pets.com sock puppet?
Actually in this case at least it's just an artifact of the press getting involved. I remember talking to this reporter when she came to Demo Day. I started trying to tell her about the changes that were happening in the startup world, and she basically said she didn't have time to deal with ideas, and just to tell her who was fighting with who.
I'm not media-savvy at all, so: is it worth publicly addressing articles (or reporters) like this one, in the form of a counter-interview or something, or is it better to just ignore it and keep on doing what you do?
I'd think that on the one hand, too many articles like this could begin to have a negative impact on the startup industry. Or, that reporters might handle their reporting a little more honestly if they got slapped for going in with a strong, conscious bias to begin with. On the other hand, it might just stir up more trouble and negative attention.
"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth."
The depressing reality in this case is that someone figured out that what sells newspapers to a mainstream audience isn't stories about cool new technology, but stories about conflict. It's why newspapers separate the technology section out from the main news section.
Conflict is what made "The Social Network" such a great movie. The story isn't about social networking, it's about manipulation, ruthless ambition and betrayal. Themes that are as old as humanity itself.
As an aside, I doubt pg will get into a pissing contest with some journalist, as that wouldn't help himself, his reputation or YC. There is nothing to be gained by going to "war".
Well said re:getting anyone into pissing contest. Charlie Munger once marked - "Don't wrestle with a pig, you'll both get dirty but the pig will like it.", I think that still holds true.
If you do this you will get much better results by prominently mentioning the reporter's name rather than (say) the Wall Street Journal.
The Journal is an institution, the reporter is just a person. Criticize the Journal and they will all have her back. Criticize her politely, calmly, but from a prominent platform... and her fellow reporters will wonder whether she might be screwing up the Journal's reputation, and internal pressure will be applied. Funny how that works.
Reporters self google more than anyone else alive and have remarkably thin skins given how much they dish out.
The Journal might retaliate by sending a sleazeball reporter like Pui Wing Tam (who went to the extent of stalking Benioff) to write a hit piece, so be prepared to go to war if you do this.
Not quite. People simply aren't spending like they did before, and you're at least expected to have some reasonable revenue model. Having worked in the startup world for 7 years now, I've heard plenty of stories of the excess of the late 90's, and it certainly seems we're still quite a ways away from that.
Having a huge tech company producing hedge-fund like growth numbers is a new phenomenon (at least since Windows 3.0), and it's carrying over into the broader tech field. If you're a wealthy investor with the choice of putting money into some financial vehicle in an increasingly crowded space, or into something that actually ships product, and still makes huge bank, the choice is a no-brainer.
Tech is the current momentum play, because all the financial vehicles are in the tank.
Assuming that's true (I don't follow the markets well enough to have an opinion), wouldn't that present a fairly spooky economic future? I can't imagine a single market would outlast all the others tanking for long.
Comments
"The momentum is driving a wave of deal envy and trash talking—complete with power plays, personal feuds and turf wars among Wall Street bankers, billionaire speculators and venture-capital veterans."
Sounds like a bubble to me. Anybody remember the pets.com sock puppet?
Actually in this case at least it's just an artifact of the press getting involved. I remember talking to this reporter when she came to Demo Day. I started trying to tell her about the changes that were happening in the startup world, and she basically said she didn't have time to deal with ideas, and just to tell her who was fighting with who.
Any chance you're willing to make some more-public comments regarding this?
How do you mean?
I'm not media-savvy at all, so: is it worth publicly addressing articles (or reporters) like this one, in the form of a counter-interview or something, or is it better to just ignore it and keep on doing what you do?
I'd think that on the one hand, too many articles like this could begin to have a negative impact on the startup industry. Or, that reporters might handle their reporting a little more honestly if they got slapped for going in with a strong, conscious bias to begin with. On the other hand, it might just stir up more trouble and negative attention.
"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth."
- Steve Jobs
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.02/jobs_pr.html
The depressing reality in this case is that someone figured out that what sells newspapers to a mainstream audience isn't stories about cool new technology, but stories about conflict. It's why newspapers separate the technology section out from the main news section.
Conflict is what made "The Social Network" such a great movie. The story isn't about social networking, it's about manipulation, ruthless ambition and betrayal. Themes that are as old as humanity itself.
As an aside, I doubt pg will get into a pissing contest with some journalist, as that wouldn't help himself, his reputation or YC. There is nothing to be gained by going to "war".
EDIT: Grammar
Well said re:getting anyone into pissing contest. Charlie Munger once marked - "Don't wrestle with a pig, you'll both get dirty but the pig will like it.", I think that still holds true.
If you do this you will get much better results by prominently mentioning the reporter's name rather than (say) the Wall Street Journal.
The Journal is an institution, the reporter is just a person. Criticize the Journal and they will all have her back. Criticize her politely, calmly, but from a prominent platform... and her fellow reporters will wonder whether she might be screwing up the Journal's reputation, and internal pressure will be applied. Funny how that works.
Reporters self google more than anyone else alive and have remarkably thin skins given how much they dish out.
The Journal might retaliate by sending a sleazeball reporter like Pui Wing Tam (who went to the extent of stalking Benioff) to write a hit piece, so be prepared to go to war if you do this.
A letter to the editor?
Not quite. People simply aren't spending like they did before, and you're at least expected to have some reasonable revenue model. Having worked in the startup world for 7 years now, I've heard plenty of stories of the excess of the late 90's, and it certainly seems we're still quite a ways away from that.
So today Apple announced that Macbook Pro sales were up 47% year to year.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/04/18/new_macbook_pr...
Having a huge tech company producing hedge-fund like growth numbers is a new phenomenon (at least since Windows 3.0), and it's carrying over into the broader tech field. If you're a wealthy investor with the choice of putting money into some financial vehicle in an increasingly crowded space, or into something that actually ships product, and still makes huge bank, the choice is a no-brainer.
Tech is the current momentum play, because all the financial vehicles are in the tank.
No they didn't. Apple didn't announce anything of the sort.
You're linking to a rumors site which is citing speculative analysis.
> ...all the financial vehicles are in the tank.
Assuming that's true (I don't follow the markets well enough to have an opinion), wouldn't that present a fairly spooky economic future? I can't imagine a single market would outlast all the others tanking for long.