The set of things that will change the world is not at all the same thing as the set of things that people will pay for. Linux has come a long way toward changing the world (especially on the server side), and it's free. People happily pay for the Wendy's Baconator and caramel Reese's Cups, but neither is on track to change the world.
Sorry, but Linux is the ultimate "me too". It has cost thousands and thousands of man-hours of labor, and the result is something that is, at best, almost as good as what already exists (and often, what has existed for a long time). See also the *BSD's.
The main effect of Linux is to keep the prices of its competitors low. For any given application, you will probably find a better alternative to it which is only slightly more expensive.
I dont think it says anything about things people pay for changing the world or even that payment means something will change the world. In fact it says "Or if its free, at least figuring out how to do some stuff that has the potential to really make a difference". In other words if you are not going to make money at least do something important. Clearly linux would qualify.
The article references three different posts about how startups need to aim higher and try to change the world, then conflates it with "trying to do something really useful like making things that people actually want to pay for," before falling back to the comment on "or if it's free."
My point is that making something people will pay for is vastly different from what any of those articles he was referencing is talking about.
Honestly, the whole post kind of struck me as a retread dressed up to be linkbait. Which, ironically, is what he's complaining about in startups.
Well, I agree that everything sucks, particularly the article, it had almost nothing to redeem it.
It not a new problem, thinking of new things is hard, trying to convince people to want new things is harder. I'm pretty sure there's a pg essay about it, it should be practically canonical my now.
It is foolish to blame startups for this. Non-business consumers will not, with extremely rare exception, pay for anything online. There will always be another startup that will be willing to give your product away for free if it's successful. So what does suck? Consumers.
Also, the iphone doesn't really have much to do with the "web"...
"There will always be another startup that will be willing to give your product away for free"
If you're product is so easy to copy that another company will be able to give customer the exact your product for free, then yes - lame startups are to blame. Gimp has been "giving Photoshop away" for years but it doesn't stop Adobe from charging $600 for it.
How can you blame customers for not willing to pay you for what you've made? Imagine General Motors blaming Americans for not buying enough Silverados in their quarterly earnings report.
Business models employed by most "Web 2.0" startups are old. They're nothing but electronic versions of magazines. There have always been subscription-based periodicals, 100% ad-supported publications and many more in between. People always paid for the good stuff.
The problem is: that there is "nothing to read", and of course there isn't, since most startups aren't solving the problem of "creating". Instead everybody is into sharing, discovering, aggregating.
Just imagine a news stand with hundreds of magazines that have short snippets of actual articles from another magazines, claiming that their "content" is pre-filtered to fit your preferences by thousands of editors.
Everyone does steal photoshop except for when it is for business related use. So you have not invalidated my point.
Again, don't compare non-web products to web based. It is vastly different.
Yes it is perfectly fine to blame the normal customer for what he wants and what he is willing to pay. I myself have very different tastes than the normal customer. At least faulting the customer makes more sense than blaming the startups that are just doing what makes the most money. The consumers can change their mind about what companies they will make successful but the companies cannot change what the customers desire.
No real exit is based around the "magazine business model".
> At least faulting the customer makes more sense than blaming the startups that are just doing what makes the most money.
The whole idea that you should blame anyone for a startup doing something that makes money is thoroughly pointless. There's nothing to blame anyone for.
If you start up a business and you make money, then, in general, you have achieved the goal of starting a business. Who cares if it's making vampire widgets on Facebook or a social network for shortstops? If you're making money you can laugh at critics all the way to the bank.
Again, don't compare non-web products to web based. It is vastly different.
No they aren't. Flickr Pro, Quicken, Mac OSX and the toaster in my kitchen are all exactly the same: I saw them, liked them and paid money to get them.
Stop thinking that you're different. First, you aren't. Second, it's not healthy.
Well, don't build easily reproducible shit then. Become a Photoshop, not Gimp. There isn't anything "as good in every way" as Flickr. And if you give me a crappy toaster as a gift, I'll throw it away and pay for a better one.
I don't understand why "web 2.0" entrepreneurs think they're different. I can imagine it may be hard for many to accept that what they do isn't worth a dime in consumers' eyes. Accept it and move on - build something with value, and do it better than the next guy.
