Despite what a couple bloggers might say, I don't think anyone is actually angry at "Team Cyprus" for having a vacation. More so, it is a feeling of jealousy/admiration that they were able to enjoy themselves at a time when many of us are in state of worry and fear.
Calling it the end of web 2.0 might be too much, but you have to appreciate the juxtaposition in some of the most beautiful and successful people in the valley partying on an island paradise while the world that made them so successful is crashing down.
But that's the thing, nothing in the valley came "crashing down" except maybe the net worth of some investors, who just went from obscenely wealthy to very wealthy. And maybe TechCrunch's standards.
Buildings are all still standing. Almost every company that was in business yesterday is still in business today. There've been a few layoffs, but those were due to issues stemming a while back.
Everything is, for the most part, the way it was two weeks ago. It'd be one thing if there was an 8.2 Earthquake. But the Dow dropping?
I think the pessimistic view is that we've seen the explosion, but the sound and shock wave haven't hit, yet, due to the different speeds at which they travel.
Frankly, I've given up attempting to have any idea what to think. I'm not a doom'n'gloomer by nature, but it's clear that there are some strange things afoot at the Circle K.
So I've decided to just get on with life and see how things develop. I'm watching the financial stuff and election with an eye to going back to the US...
Matt, I'm worried about you. I don't think your level of alarm is sufficient. When those buildings do start falling over, you won't be prepared! It basically goes Dow drop -> Earthquake -> Zombies. Those of us who realize that are just trying really hard to help our fellow Americans by posting article after unsubstantiated article with our thoughts on how exactly the world is about to end. Stop undermining this important public service, sir!
No prob. Just remember, shoot them in the head, okay? Otherwise, you'll just embarrass yourself. After careful analysis of various sciences I have determined we have 17-19.5 days to prepare for Zombie Judgement Day. Don't fuck this up.
Hmm, with the Brady Bill and all that, I'm not sure I can get a shotgun in that amount of time. There really should be laws allowing for looser gun control whenever Zombies are a near-term possibility.
I agree, but nobody ever said life would be easy. Baseball bats, golf clubs, these things work in the meantime. I mean, sooner or later your neighbor with a shotgun is going to get his face eaten, at which point you can grab his. Pistols work too (.45 or high caliber recommended) in the short term.
Plus I'm far too lazy to go around trying to trap them so as they cannot eat my brain while I experiment with stakes. I require a projectile for Zombie killing, otherwise I might as well just give up and join them.
No, a lot of people ARE angry about it, and not because of the money. The Web 2.0 crowd have been singing "It's not a bubble" for years. Some of us who lived through 1.0 knew better. Not taking it seriously, not realizing a company HAS to have revenue to survive, and that VC is not a revenue stream has contributed to this meltdown. It's hubris, and the video is an example of it. Not to mention a Wall Street Journal reporter - WALL STREET JOURNAL - is hanging out drinking with the people she's supposed to be covering objectively and making stupid drunken videos. It's a massive fail on all counts.
Just curious, being a Valley outsider (Washingtonian): How common is the startup that finds the middle ground between working to the bone (trying desperately to be the next Google/Yahoo/Microsoft and secure massive VC) and the expect-nothing-back, RMS-enamored open source group?
Because that's where I'd like to be: A tech shop that cares about turning a profit, but that's equally concerned with innovation and just having a good time. It seems to me that many people affiliated with the startup scene are way too dollar-driven or take themselves too seriously.
Exactly. Unless you're working on an open source project, you're building a business. The core purpose of any business is to maximize value for your shareholders- that's business school 101. If innovating or having fun are means to maximize value, then that's what you should do, but I don't know how any startup that doesn't keep its eye on the prize($$$) can be succesful.
That is, if you're a traded company. And to parent's parent, that is, if you have investors. It's the assumption that the most noteworthy prize is "$$$" that I think needs to be reconsidered, but that of course depends on who's in the company and what their priorities are.
If what you're doing is significant, I think that at some point profits will be a given if you stay small and nimble.
I don't think it's impossible to have fun while still attempting to build a profitable enterprise. Most startuppers I know seem to enjoy the process enough that they would just do another one if their current one tanked. It beats working a job by a long shot.
Less true of HP today, but they arguably started this silicon valley thing, Woz wanted to work for them, etc. The "Built to Last" companies tended to be about something meaningful, not just naked profit (but profit as well).
So, I know you're asking more from an "approach to business" perspective than a "how much Open Source goes on in the valley" perspective...but, I figured I'd chime in, anyway:
I've been surprised by how little Open Source happens in the valley, at least among the "young, rich and good looking" startup set that shows up all the time on TC and Valleywag. I'm somewhat disappointed by it, as well. Folks are building everything they do on Free and Open Source Software. It's polite to give something back, even if the license was written before web apps were a presence, and so you aren't legally obligated to do so. I don't want that to sound too harsh or too inclusive. There are tons of startups, in the valley and elsewhere, that do take part in Open Source development, but I'd say for every one that I meet at events, I meet five startup founders that have never contributed a line of code to Open Source, even though their apps are built with PHP, Ruby, Perl, or Python, using vast swaths of Open Source library code, are checked into git or Subversion, and run on top of Linux. This could just be selection bias, since it seems like a lot of OSS folks are more likely to be bootstrapping outside of the valley.
Anyway, we're an Open Source project (Webmin/Virtualmin/Usermin) turned startup. It has positives and negatives, but I don't think one can say, "You can't be the next Google/Yahoo/Microsoft, if you're running a fun Open Source oriented company"...we don't know that yet. It's still early in the history of OSS startups. Red Hat does OK. MySQL AB sold to Sun for ~$500 million, XenSource to Citrix for ~$300...Not Google/Yahoo/MS money, but nothing to sneeze at. Making money on Open Source is harder than on proprietary software, in general. But, you get some awesome benefits. Like, how many of our competitors can claim millions of users? Not a single one. While our software has been downloaded over 12 million times from a single source (and OSS ends up in all sorts of funny places without showing up on the download counter, because it gets packaged, included with distros and hardware products, comes from local mirrors, etc.). And, let's face it, when you have a million people looking at your software on a daily basis, you pretty much can't help but make money if you're trying. Free is a powerful game changer in most markets, and changing the game might be mandatory if you're working in an established market against strong competitors.
From the perspective of raising money, investors don't have a problem with it, and most understand OSS. It may even be a positive angle for them, assuming you still have a business model after factoring in, "But it's free!"
> I've been surprised by how little Open Source happens in the valley,
I'm not. I lived there during the last boom, and worked at an open source company, Linuxcare. Pretty much anyone who was anyone at that company in terms of actual open source contributions came from elsewhere (well, there were a few exceptions, but not many). Our strongest teams were in Australia, Canada and Italy.
I think the reason is fairly straightforward: the valley is expensive, and there are lots of startups going on. There is less of a "tinkering with something just for the pure pleasure/heck of it" spirit. Maybe that goes on too, but the next thought is "huh, this is pretty cool, I wonder how I can monetize it?". It's also easy to get hired doing reasonably interesting stuff, leading to less time on your own experimenting, and larger opportunity costs for those who don't pursue a job.
I agree, the content on techcrunch continues to tend towards random wild opinion instead of tech startup coverage. From Arrington's summer of hate for twitter, to the current sky is falling, its becoming impossible to stay interested.
It's in danger of coming out of my Google Reader, I've already got plenty of other sources for startup and tech news in there and I'd rather read the personal blogs of people with interesting opinions than the mass-produced tripe being churned out by TechCrunch at present. TC is wearing out my "J" button and I can't afford another. There's a credit crunch on, you know.
I actually just removed it from my Google Reader a few hours ago. Got sick of filtering out all the noise and figured all the good stuff will float to the front page of HN anyways.
Isn't Cyprus the most heavily militarized land in the world, being contested by the turks, greeks, and locals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus
"The island is de facto partitioned into four main parts:[4]
* the area under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus, in the south of the island;
* the Turkish-occupied area in the north,[5] calling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognized only by Turkey);
* the United Nations-controlled Green Line, separating the two; and
* two British Sovereign Base Areas (Akrotiri and Dhekelia).[6]"
Unfortunately, like you said the 37% is occupied since the 1974 invasion. Greek-Cypriots were raped and forced out of their homes and their land and they are 80% of the population.
Cyprus won its independece in 1960 from the British (who have been on the island since late 18th century).
The Turks came to the island for the first time on 15th century.
The history of the island is totally Greek so if someone is going to refer to the island then at least should do it correctly cause otherwise is only doing propaganda and helping the wrong information to be known.
Attempts are made that the political situation is resolved but I am not very optimistic.
Well, if the part they were vacationing in is technically Turkish, then it was a Turkish vacation. That's what I read somewhere, though I have no idea if it is true.
How do people feel about banning Techcrunch for a week on an experiment basis? Afterwards - Vote. This is what happens when dollar signs get in the way of building something fucking cool or useful.
Complete speculation, but I feel that newer people tend to vote up Techcrunch articles (regardless of topic) because they've heard of it before.
I think we should stop banning sites as a solution to moderation.
All this TC backlash is getting somewhat ridiculous but at the same time it is what it is. There's plenty of tech news sites out there but they all report on the same news because they all read the same feeds and have access to the same scoops. The only way to differentiate is to editorialize the news. It's much the same as 24 hour cable news.
But choosing to write 746 word blog posts or pounding TC with all these comments or upvoting these things to #1 is the real problem HN has. I really wish people would just let these minor things go.
Stop upvoting LAME stories. Stop upvoting whiney blog posts ABOUT lame stories. A bit of self control is a lot more powerful than censoring websites.
Too bad the karma leader-board/system doesn't really encourage self-control. Not that I'm in favor of banning anything, but I do think something is clearly not working when this is the top-story on HN.
I guess my hypothesis is that it's the new people that are upvoting the lame stories due to brand recognition. That's why I want to run an experiment - nothing more, nothing less. Or maybe people are doing it for quick karma. I _don't know_.
What's the problem with banning sources where 95% of the content has sadly become lame? If people want to read said stories they can go to that website. Or submit it to NonHackerNews. It's not like we're banning them from the internet.
You're right, but most people don't have self control, which is the root of the problem. I'm just trying to suggest changes to a system dealing with how things are instead of how we want them to be.
oo I really like that idea. I believe that's what PG did with XKDC and some others.
Is there really much of a difference in content (NOT quality) between Venturebeat, Killer Startups, Alleyinsider, Centernetworks, GigaOm, RWW, Mashable, et al? I have no idea - what's everyone else think?
47 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 100 ms ] threadCalling it the end of web 2.0 might be too much, but you have to appreciate the juxtaposition in some of the most beautiful and successful people in the valley partying on an island paradise while the world that made them so successful is crashing down.
Buildings are all still standing. Almost every company that was in business yesterday is still in business today. There've been a few layoffs, but those were due to issues stemming a while back.
Everything is, for the most part, the way it was two weeks ago. It'd be one thing if there was an 8.2 Earthquake. But the Dow dropping?
Frankly, I've given up attempting to have any idea what to think. I'm not a doom'n'gloomer by nature, but it's clear that there are some strange things afoot at the Circle K.
So I've decided to just get on with life and see how things develop. I'm watching the financial stuff and election with an eye to going back to the US...
Because that's where I'd like to be: A tech shop that cares about turning a profit, but that's equally concerned with innovation and just having a good time. It seems to me that many people affiliated with the startup scene are way too dollar-driven or take themselves too seriously.
People in every sphere take themselves too seriously I think. Everything is life or death the the people involved.
If what you're doing is significant, I think that at some point profits will be a given if you stay small and nimble.
I've had roughly 30 jobs in my life and this is easily the best one. I would do another startup in a heart beat - hopefully I won't have to.
Less true of HP today, but they arguably started this silicon valley thing, Woz wanted to work for them, etc. The "Built to Last" companies tended to be about something meaningful, not just naked profit (but profit as well).
I've been surprised by how little Open Source happens in the valley, at least among the "young, rich and good looking" startup set that shows up all the time on TC and Valleywag. I'm somewhat disappointed by it, as well. Folks are building everything they do on Free and Open Source Software. It's polite to give something back, even if the license was written before web apps were a presence, and so you aren't legally obligated to do so. I don't want that to sound too harsh or too inclusive. There are tons of startups, in the valley and elsewhere, that do take part in Open Source development, but I'd say for every one that I meet at events, I meet five startup founders that have never contributed a line of code to Open Source, even though their apps are built with PHP, Ruby, Perl, or Python, using vast swaths of Open Source library code, are checked into git or Subversion, and run on top of Linux. This could just be selection bias, since it seems like a lot of OSS folks are more likely to be bootstrapping outside of the valley.
Anyway, we're an Open Source project (Webmin/Virtualmin/Usermin) turned startup. It has positives and negatives, but I don't think one can say, "You can't be the next Google/Yahoo/Microsoft, if you're running a fun Open Source oriented company"...we don't know that yet. It's still early in the history of OSS startups. Red Hat does OK. MySQL AB sold to Sun for ~$500 million, XenSource to Citrix for ~$300...Not Google/Yahoo/MS money, but nothing to sneeze at. Making money on Open Source is harder than on proprietary software, in general. But, you get some awesome benefits. Like, how many of our competitors can claim millions of users? Not a single one. While our software has been downloaded over 12 million times from a single source (and OSS ends up in all sorts of funny places without showing up on the download counter, because it gets packaged, included with distros and hardware products, comes from local mirrors, etc.). And, let's face it, when you have a million people looking at your software on a daily basis, you pretty much can't help but make money if you're trying. Free is a powerful game changer in most markets, and changing the game might be mandatory if you're working in an established market against strong competitors.
From the perspective of raising money, investors don't have a problem with it, and most understand OSS. It may even be a positive angle for them, assuming you still have a business model after factoring in, "But it's free!"
I'm not. I lived there during the last boom, and worked at an open source company, Linuxcare. Pretty much anyone who was anyone at that company in terms of actual open source contributions came from elsewhere (well, there were a few exceptions, but not many). Our strongest teams were in Australia, Canada and Italy.
I think the reason is fairly straightforward: the valley is expensive, and there are lots of startups going on. There is less of a "tinkering with something just for the pure pleasure/heck of it" spirit. Maybe that goes on too, but the next thought is "huh, this is pretty cool, I wonder how I can monetize it?". It's also easy to get hired doing reasonably interesting stuff, leading to less time on your own experimenting, and larger opportunity costs for those who don't pursue a job.
I'd like you to correct that. Cyprus is GREEK! It has been for the past 3000 years.
Welcome to my home country.
"The island is de facto partitioned into four main parts:[4]
Cyprus won its independece in 1960 from the British (who have been on the island since late 18th century).
The Turks came to the island for the first time on 15th century.
The history of the island is totally Greek so if someone is going to refer to the island then at least should do it correctly cause otherwise is only doing propaganda and helping the wrong information to be known.
Attempts are made that the political situation is resolved but I am not very optimistic.
There are 3 million Greeks in United States but If I come to US I suppose I'd say I am going to Greece?
The only excuse to call it a turkish party is if there was a Turk amongst them. Otherwise is wrong and irritating.
Otherwise, the only reasonable way to refer to it, so not to provoke, is call it a Cyprus party.
Complete speculation, but I feel that newer people tend to vote up Techcrunch articles (regardless of topic) because they've heard of it before.
All this TC backlash is getting somewhat ridiculous but at the same time it is what it is. There's plenty of tech news sites out there but they all report on the same news because they all read the same feeds and have access to the same scoops. The only way to differentiate is to editorialize the news. It's much the same as 24 hour cable news.
But choosing to write 746 word blog posts or pounding TC with all these comments or upvoting these things to #1 is the real problem HN has. I really wish people would just let these minor things go.
Stop upvoting LAME stories. Stop upvoting whiney blog posts ABOUT lame stories. A bit of self control is a lot more powerful than censoring websites.
What's the problem with banning sources where 95% of the content has sadly become lame? If people want to read said stories they can go to that website. Or submit it to NonHackerNews. It's not like we're banning them from the internet.
You're right, but most people don't have self control, which is the root of the problem. I'm just trying to suggest changes to a system dealing with how things are instead of how we want them to be.
Maybe giving their stories a somewhat lighter weighting, since they are easier to vote up.
Is there really much of a difference in content (NOT quality) between Venturebeat, Killer Startups, Alleyinsider, Centernetworks, GigaOm, RWW, Mashable, et al? I have no idea - what's everyone else think?