
What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen - mshafrir
http://qz.com/36368/eight-things-marc-andreessen-said-to-quartz-that-made-us-sit-up-and-listen/
======
groby_b
Yay. Another "I got mine" article from an Internet celebrity.

He's got no idea what middle class means.

He's throwing out the usual conservative talking points about deregulation.
(How'd that work for the banking system? In, say, 1929, 1989, 2007?
Electricity in CA? The environment before 1970?)

He's of course in favor of manipulating IPO prices, because that's where he
makes money, after all.

He's completely delusional about AirBnB.

And he's just a plain lunatic when he says he'd take eye cancer to have Glass.

It certainly makes you sit up and listen. And then shake your head sadly that
you wasted time on the article.

------
eor
Either the author or Andreesen completely misunderstands or misrepresents the
concept of network neutrality. Network neutrality doesn't mean users don't pay
for the bandwidth they consume. It means they pay the same price for that
bandwidth regardless of what it's used for.

~~~
simonh
Exactly. The telcos want to charge Youtube (and others) more money for a
faster connection to me, but I already paid for my connection to be fast.

Those aren't Youtube's bits coming to me over the wire though, they are mine.
I paid for them, both in money to the telco for my connection through them,
and to Youtube with my attention to their ads.

~~~
sharedliberty
Well, but other subscribers paid as much as you but may not be using Youtube
as heavily. When they do use Youtube, they want that fast connection, but in
aggregate they use less capacity because they are less frequent users.
Charging Youtube is one way to account for this difference in usage. Charging
consumers based on aggregate usage (like mobile carriers now do) would be
another way.

~~~
exit
so all you are saying is that some people pay for (N gigabytes per month) and
actually use N, while others pay for the same plan but only use a fraction of
N?

~~~
sharedliberty
I'm referring to typical home/business service where you pay for X
downstream/Y downstream, not aggregate usage. Almost everyone will use the
full bandwidth at some point (just watch just one video) but some people use
it more frequently.

Granted, Andreesen was talking about mobile where pricing is N gigs/month, but
even that structure might not capture true cost. It also depends when the user
uses that bandwidth. During peak hours, capacity is short and end-user Quality
of Service might get degraded to accommodate. Rather than complicating end-
user pricing with these issues (like charging $Y for X bits at ZZ:ZZ PM), it
might make sense to charge the content providers.

Netflix, for instance, during peak hours, accounts for 32.7% of all internet
traffic: [http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/netflix-
uses-32-...](http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/netflix-
uses-32-7-percent-internet-bandwidth-119517).

Who knows what the best solution is. Maybe it's charging content providers,
maybe end-users. The point is that it's not a good idea to have the government
set a one-size-fits-all solution.

------
kirinan
He's wrong about the middle class and the fact that we should pay cheaper
wages. In theory, this sounds like it would be correct, however the middle
class is born out of a balance between supply and demand. When Supply is too
high or demand is too high, the middle class states to disappear, whether from
lack of funds to buy things or from lack of a job. However, in a healthy
service based economy, where people are needed to create more supply, then
businesses are more likely to hire and train someone with less experience and
take the risk because the risk may pay off. When there is a demand problem,
companies will not take the risk (thus what we have now, people need
experience to start working). Lowering the wage will cause a demand problem,
and will simply put us in the same position we are in now because people will
not be able to afford goods. It sounds good, businesses creating things
cheaper, but that really only helps people who have money already, and they
aren't the ones that need the help.

~~~
rhizome
The whole list is comprised of the bleatings of privilege. He's got his and
now, entirely coincidentally I'm sure, his advice for the future is oriented
around things that will keep him at the top of the food chain.

------
PatentTroll
His comments on the middle class, environmental regulation, and net neutrality
paint a picture of an out of touch elitist. His comments on AirBnB "eating
[all] real estate" just make him sound delusional.

I'm disappointed, I always liked that guy.

------
simonw
Scrolling up and down on that page causes the URL to change to reflect the
article you are now viewing. I'm pretty certain this is a bad idea.

~~~
mnicole
I have never enjoyed using or understood the concept of their design; someone
was trying to be way too clever. The layout is simple and makes sense, but the
scrolling experience is absolutely awful. Clicking my back button to get back
to this post shouldn't scroll me up through other articles I didn't read and
there isn't enough distinction between them if I'm scrolling quickly to skim.

------
pstuart
He was in the right place at the right time and now he's rich. And that's the
only reason why anybody is listening to him now, certainly not for anything
else he's done.

Cheaper labor? How about a more effective labor force? Ugh.

~~~
pg
You are so mistaken that I wince for your sake reading this comment.

The reason I listen to Marc is that he's among the smartest people in the
startup community.

~~~
bambax
Enron people labeled themselves "the smartest guys in the room"... and they
were! But they were wrong on everything else. Very smart people are wrong all
the time, because of conflicts of interest, because of ideology, because they
don't have all the facts, because they're not trying to think rationally, etc.

(On how "smart" people are often wrong, see for example "The Psychology of
Rational Thought" by Keith E. Stanovich.)

Regarding Mr. Andreessen, he's just advocating very conservative policies --
esp. less regulations. Less regulation may be desirable for ventures such as
AirBnB, but that doesn't mean it's an absolute good. It at least deserves a
public discussion and not just affirmations by one of AirBnB's investors...

(Also, "your mistakes make me wince" is not an argument ;-)

------
cookiecaper
Say what you will about his actual opinions, I think it's refreshing to hear
someone who is willing to say what he believes despite popular concurrence
with his opinions. Very tired of the echo chamber in the tech community.

As for the article, many of these seem like realistic perspectives, even if
they discomfort the typical listener.

~~~
jjoonathan
> it's refreshing to hear someone who is willing to say what he believes

> echo chamber in the tech community

Do you really believe that the "echo chamber" happens because people lie about
their beliefs to fit in? I couldn't disagree more. I'm fairly certain the
"echo chamber" happens because we share backgrounds, information sources, and
inferential technique, leading us to share conclusions as well. It would be
fair to call our community "too homogenous/narrow" but it's equally incorrect
and insulting to imply that the majority viewpoint persists through popularity
alone.

As for the article, you're correct that his perspectives are "realistic" in
that I believe they are shared by many people in the investor class. However,
they're completely self-serving and unaligned with the common good. In that
sense I see his opinions as roughly morally equivalent to the cries of
"redistribute all the wealth to eliminate poverty" that occur in different
contexts.

For instance, he predicts that we will "run out of capacity" for our data
hungry apps. SO BUILD MORE CAPACITY, DAMMIT. If that means redistributing
spectrum, so be it. Match supply with demand. That's what markets are supposed
to do. I'm sure investors would love to ride the bubble formed by artificially
restricted supply but they do so at the cost of everyone else. It's sickening
to see him pretend that he's forwarding a common interest by opposing net
neutrality.

Ditto for his comments on the workforce.

None of his other opinions (1,5,6,7,8) seem terribly controversial so I've
ignored them.

~~~
cookiecaper
>Do you really believe that the "echo chamber" happens because people lie
about their beliefs to fit in?

I don't believe most people actively _lie_ about their opinions, though I'm
sure it happens and probably more often than one would want to admit. I think
it's more just a classic case of groupthink; people just adopt the opinion of
the group for the social benefit, more or less subconsciously.

More important than simply _having_ an unpopular opinion is the willingness to
express it when asked, even if it's not going to result in praise or accolades
from the group's (explicitly _or_ implicity) chosen "thought leaders". Such a
thing encourages independent analysis and challenges the authority of said
"thought leaders", which is healthy in most contexts.

It's especially important to do this in tech; since many of us seem to lack
basic social skills, the cost of expressing a thing at odds with the group's
position are disproportionately severe, and combined with the technical
perspective of most in the field, groupthink pervades our sector particularly
deeply, and the consequences of opposing one's technical religious positions
are particularly harsh.

While it's pretty obvious that Andreesen's opinions are informed by his
personal perspective as a wealthy dude, I don't think we should allow that to
unfairly bias our reception. We're obviously not going to volunteer to have
the phone company charge us $500/mo, but it doesn't mean that he's wrong about
the basic principle of metered data or the availability of supply.

While you see an "artificially restricted supply", Andreesen sees
"artificially curtailed demand" (as far as supply<->demand applies to pricing)
by heavy dependence on cheap offshored labor and the political impossibility
of bringing that labor front and center (i.e., on-shoring it). I think this is
a viewpoint worthy of consideration even if we don't like its implications,
which are basically that things should cost much more than they do now.

------
notlisted
AirBnB will eat nothing. AirBnB is thriving because of non-enforcement of
existing laws, which were put in place by cities to protect the consumer, and
because the IRS is not collecting taxes.

Relevant:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/your-money/a-warning-
for-a...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/your-money/a-warning-for-airbnb-
hosts-who-may-be-breaking-the-law.html?_r=0)

[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-27/airbnb-to-
ta...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-27/airbnb-to-tax-or-not-
tax-a-rented-bed)

As soon as the hotel industry perceives AirBnB as a legitimate threat --we're
getting there in NYC-- it will take action/lobbying to the next level, and it
won't be pretty. For starters, they could ask the IRS to demand a full DB dump
of all hosts to tax their (mostly illegitimate) income, which I suspect is not
reported as such. The pool of available inventory will dry up in no time.

That said, I am wondering if he means that they can pivot and buy their own
buildings to become full-fledged hoteliers.

~~~
27182818284
AirBnB will push back and fans of AirBnB will push back too. In addition to
that, there is always business outside the US. Half the people I know who have
used AirBnB used it to stay outside the continent. They'll hard times, no
doubt, but I wouldn't immediately dig their grave and put flowers on it.

~~~
notlisted
No doubt they will push back, and their fans too, but... there are existing
laws being flaunted. Enforcement is imminent. As the initial link indicated,
current hosts already have a legal liability, which is really ignored (hidden)
by AirBNB.

Not putting flowers on their grave, but sincerely doubting their prospects in
the (US) hospitality-space, especially in metro areas. Like I mentioned above,
he may be referring to possible pivots based on fan-base, data collected etc.,
e.g. actually running their own unique hotels, a matching solution for people
who are looking for buyers (stay before you buy), roommate finders (rentals
over 30 days, which are mostly legal), lead generation (rentals and sales)
etc. etc. etc.

For the record: I think he's a smart guy, and I agree with most of his other
points (1,4,5,6,8), question others (2,3 & 7).

Also agree with another poster that he was a lucky guy (I've actually used
Spyglass and Netscape 1.0, get off my lawn, haha)

------
inthewoods
Seems to be suffering from "Success Bias" wherein because he was successful in
one thing, he naturally thinks he is right about all things.

~~~
wilfra
I would imagine lots of VC's end up feeling this way, because the people they
interact with most are amazingly talented and smart startup founders - who are
constantly kissing their ass and telling them everything they say is genius.

Don't get me wrong, I do think he is a genius and there is some gold in this
article - but also some ridiculous statements.

~~~
inthewoods
I've seen it in a lot of successful people - it is pretty common. I've
actually had a successful person who have no background in my field tell me
why I was wrong about something they clearly knew nothing about. It was
nothing short of amazing.

------
ActVen
I'm in full agreement with his comment about timing and many of the ideas of
the dotcom bubble. I wouldn't go as far as saying that all of them were good.
But, many of them were excellent and were just very poorly timed. Even when
you just think about the infrastructure cost of building something during the
bubble vs now, it is astounding how much more affordable it is.

------
bwanab
"...but it is harder to do business in most states in the US than it is to do
business in a lot of places around the world.”

And yet, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation's ranking on ease
of doing business the U.S. as a whole came in a respectable 10th, and I'm
going to make a wild guess that the places he is talking about in that quote
aren't many if any of the countries ahead of the U.S.

[<http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking?src=home>]

~~~
patmcguire
Yeah, it's a pretty ludicrous statement. When was the last time Marc Adreessen
had to pay a bribe?

~~~
diminish
your intended point is right. but bribes usually make everything easier for
startups in over-bureaucratic states, bribes themselves are not making
anything hard, but unethical.

------
pvdm
Out-of-touch elitist, like most of SV brats. If darpa did not exist, there
would be no internet. The middle-class existed because once-upon-a-time people
believed a rising tide lifted all boats.

~~~
barretts
i wish i could believe that. in the 1950s, the U.S. produced 60 percent of
global output and had no real international competition, thanks to the
destruction in europe, russia, asia, etc. today it produces 18 percent and
americans compete against chinese for jobs. i guess that seems like a better
explanation for the plight of the middle class than saying we no longer
believe in that "a rising tide lift[s] all boats."

------
idm
qz.com will not render with Ghostery enabled.

Also, what's with that qz.com headline? Why, exactly, do we care about the
gonzo-reaction of a tech blogger (the "sit up and listen" bit.) It's just a
fluffy throw-away expression and comes across as the reddit equivalent of
"shit just got real." I understand: they're summarizing 8 insights from
Andressen, but strictly speaking, the headline is about the reporter instead
of Andressen. How about: "Andressen predicts massive changes to housing,
mobile, and the middle class." I don't write headlines, but at least this
refers to the material in the article.

As for the content: on the one hand, I appreciate a bulleted list for its
quick readability, but the headline sounds to me like an excuse to make a list
instead of a narrative...

~~~
rhizome
Your suggested headline doesn't focus on Quartz.

------
eli
Reads sort of like one of those intentionally contrarian Slate articles.

------
andrewcooke
has anyone else who can never see this site worked what plugin/blocker causes
it to spin forever?

~~~
pilom
My temporary solution is to right click and select Inspect Element in Chrome.
Then find the "overlay" div and set the z-index to 0. This pushes that to the
bottom of the pile and you can browse normally again.

For me personally I think it sits b/c my work proxy has an ad blocker.

~~~
luser001
Thanks! Even simpler fix for lazy: Inspect Element, right click on the element
in the developer pane, and choose "delete node".

~~~
rhizome
Or left-click select, then hit the delete key. :)

------
yarrel
The ideology of the wannabe ruling class in all its terrifying glory.

------
pnathan
My understanding of the middle class is that they were the mid-small
businessmen - merchants - of Europe since the 1600s. Checking wikipedia, it
agrees with me.

There's also the idea that the middle class is the high-school degreed people
who make "decent" money, perhaps by being in the trades (i.e., plumber) or
working in a factory. Edit: this idea is not unique, I've heard it in a
variety of places.

These two ideas don't really connect too well (although business-minded
tradespeople can grow their business to be fairly lucrative).

I have no particular comment regarding Marc's statements, but I wanted to
point out the varying definitions.

------
wahsd
Andreessen is gone. The transformation is complete. He has lost all legitimacy
beyond being a fat cat that manipulates markets by sheer power of money and
influence in the inefficient way that monopolists do.

~~~
pvdm
His bald head reminds me of Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse now. He's gone rogue.

------
onetwothreefour
Rich guys says we should destroy the environment, people should be enslaved in
sweatshops to make widgets to make him richer and talks some complete idiocy
about AirBNB.

News at 11.

