
The Mind of Marc Andreessen - cpeterso
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/18/tomorrows-advance-man
======
dunkelheit
Most of the article reads like a pr piece sugar-coating Marc and a16z, and the
part about his wife is unapologetic celebrity gossip :). I also doubt that
depictions of the workings of VC firms from this article should be taken at
face value.

To be fair, the author tries to ask some adversarial questions towards the end
of the article, but for example Alex Payne's criticism (link:
[https://al3x.net/2014/06/17/dear-marc-
andreessen.html](https://al3x.net/2014/06/17/dear-marc-andreessen.html)) is
dismissed with a casual ad-hominem attack.

The vision Marc presents for blue-collar workers (work a lot and be poor or
work when you feel like it and be very poor) is hardly enticing. The future he
is envisioning is one of extreme inequality, with a handful of people
controlling most of the advanced technology that keeps the world running. And
a16z clearly want to be among these people.

~~~
leoc
> Most of the article reads like a pr piece sugar-coating Marc and a16z

This really isn't so. The whole article is peppered with jabs at Andreesen's
personality, skill-set, track record, self-awareness and skull shape. And when
the writer reports Andreesen blowing off Payne as “a self-hating software
engineer”, he didn't do that to make Andreesen look good or sound persuasive.

------
numair
This is incredibly thorough, honest and entertaining. The writer has done an
excellent job.

Andreesen's candid comments about Gurley/Benchmark are hilarious. The whole
bit about his rural upbringing influencing his full-on embrace of a tech-
utopian future is something I could fully understand; whenever I hate our
industry, I go spend some time in a beautiful rural environment until I
remember why it's so frustrating.

I'm glad the writer explained the influence of Mike Ovitz and the CAA culture
on how A16Z operates. One of my closest friends was an agent at CAA in the
late 90s, and we used to spend a lot of time talking about their operating
strategy. CAA took over the entertainment agent world by being more
resourceful, cultured, helpful and -- most importantly -- _way more_
professional than everyone else (I was told a great story of how Donald Trump,
while searching for an agent during the time of The Apprentice, took a meeting
with CAA; upon entering and finding a conference table of perfectly suited,
perfectly punctual agents waiting for him, he exclaimed, "you're all hired!").
I'd be interested to compare an old-school CAA client pitch with a modern A16Z
startup meeting. I also think the rest of the Valley and its VCs don't
understand the CAA way, and why it is so superior to their golf-club way of
doing business.

The behind-the-scenes look at Instacart's latest funding round was really
interesting. Understanding the psychology that leads to massive funding rounds
-- and how you're either getting bid up by each partner in the after-pitch
conversation, or bid down until they don't want to participate -- is something
that doesn't get much public visibility. Again, such an honest look at the
inner workings of Andreesen and his colleagues.

Andreesen is, quite clearly, at the top of the game in the VC business. His
success is well deserved. I am sure everyone in SV will be talking about this
article this week. This article is of great service to everyone who isn't deep
in the SV game, but who wants to understand how it works (or _should_ work).

~~~
foobarqux
> Andreesen is, quite clearly, at the top of the game in the VC business.

Shouldn't his returns have some bearing?

------
julianpye
Most people think that creating innovative products relies on 'trend-spotting'
and on reacting quickly to demands. But that is reactive. You can have a much
bigger impact if you're willing to shape the future. This is why Doug Leone
quoted is wrong when he refers to the PC and the iPhone as black swans,
because they were not. They were products attempting to shape the future. Marc
has an uncanny talent at detecting what startup may shape the future and
creating a set of financial tools to ensure that market acceptance can happen.

This talent is what makes A16Z so amazing - they are so different from the
average bean-counting VCs, whose sets of tools are focused on financial exits
and powerplays inside boards.

~~~
normloman
Yeah but history is littered with products that failed at shaping the future
(Apple Newton, Web TV, Early VR headsets). The black swan part is that few
could have predicted the iPhone or the PC would succeed.

~~~
cookiecaper
The funny thing about all the products you listed is that later iterations of
these concepts have made (or are now about to make, in the case of VR) major
impacts. Perhaps part of the reason these products failed to "shape the
future" was because they didn't have the business and financial backing that
can be offered by firms like Andreessen-Horowitz.

~~~
normloman
Na, they did. It's more about timing. And it takes some luck to get the timing
right.

------
ghshephard
This was an absolutely wonderful, and really accurate insight into not only
Marc, but the business of VC. Getting to go behind the doors, and sit in on
the conversations the GPs were having regarding the valuation of instacart
alone made the article worth reading.

It clocked in at 13,500 words, and I couldn't tear myself away from it. I
don't think I was tempted, for even a second to divert my attention.

Highly recommended.

------
dylanjermiah
On the topic of A16Z v. Benchmark, especially from 09 onwards Benchmark has
done ridiculously well. Early on Uber(a, b + c), Snapchat (a + b), Instagram
(a + b), Dropbox (b), Nextdoor (a, b + c), Hortonworks (a, b), Zendesk (b, c +
d), New Relic (a, b + c) and Twitter (c + d). I'm sure I'm missing a few as
well.

I'd love for the fund data to be available!

~~~
fredwilson
Benchmark has been on a tear in VC not seen since KP did it in the mid/late
90s. they are absolutely the best in the business right now

------
jeffreyrogers
Here is a more critical (and much shorter) viewpoint from the New York Times:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/upshot/andreessen-
horowitz...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/upshot/andreessen-horowitz-
dealmaker-to-the-stars-of-silicon-valley.html)

------
joaorico
His old blog is no longer online, but someone collected it here. Very much
worth reading: [http://pmarchive.com/](http://pmarchive.com/)

edit: Ah, it was published as an ebook as well this January:
[http://a16z.com/2015/01/09/pmarca-blog-
ebook/](http://a16z.com/2015/01/09/pmarca-blog-ebook/)

His current blog:
[http://blog.pmarca.com/archive/](http://blog.pmarca.com/archive/)

------
jmduke
_One morning, as I sat down to breakfast with Andreessen, a rival V.C. sent me
a long e-mail about a16z’s holdings. The V.C. estimated that because
Andreessen’s firm had taken so many growth positions, its average ownership
stake was roughly 7.5 per cent (it’s eight per cent), which meant that to get
5x to 10x across its four funds “you would need your aggregate portfolio to be
worth $240-$480B!” You would, in other words, need to invest in every Facebook
and Uber that came along. When I started to check the math with Andreessen, he
made a jerking-off motion and said “Blah-blah-blah. We have all the
models—we’re elephant hunting, going after big game!”_

Uh, is there a more robust/cogent thought that explains this?

~~~
vasilipupkin
I think I'll take a stab at this. Suppose you do need the aggregate to be
worth around 400 billion to deliver decent returns. If Andreesen Horowitz
catches the next 2 Facebooks ( worth 200 billion each ) over the next 10-15
years and loses money on every single other deal ( an extremely pessimistic
assumption ), they can deliver it. Is this a guaranteed outcome? No, but it
certainly seems reasonable / plausible

~~~
presty
> Suppose you do need the aggregate to be worth around 400 billion to deliver
> decent returns. If Andreesen Horowitz catches the next 2 Facebooks ( worth
> 200 billion each ) over the next 10-15 years and loses money on every single
> other deal ( an extremely pessimistic assumption ), they can deliver it.

your assumption is that A16Z would own 100% of those 2 next Facebooks... which
I don't think I need to point out how wrong that is (sorry, I just did)

let's assume something more realistic, like a16z getting 20% of each 200B
company that appears - they would need to invest on the next TEN Facebooks (at
an earliesh stage), and that seems a bit harder. and let's not forget that
most "unicorns" don't even go past the 10B when IPOing, so in reality, they
need a lot more than 10 FBs...

------
olalonde
> And that Benchmark’s best-known V.C., the six-feet-eight Bill Gurley,
> another outspoken giant with a large Twitter following, advised Horowitz to
> cut Andreessen and his six-million-dollar investment out of the company.
> Andreessen said, “I can’t stand him. If you’ve seen ‘Seinfeld,’ Bill Gurley
> is my Newman”—Jerry’s bête noire.

Sheds some light on
[http://pmarchive.com/guide_to_startups_part9.html](http://pmarchive.com/guide_to_startups_part9.html)

------
js2
Another profile of Marc from August 2000:

[http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/8.08/loudcloud_pr.htm...](http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/8.08/loudcloud_pr.html)

For those who don't know the outcome of Loudcloud, it would eventually sell
the managed services business to EDS and rebrand the software portion of the
business as Opsware. Opsware would later be acquired by HP. HP would later
acquire EDS.

------
otoburb
>>One partner suggested that LearnUp was a “ten on thirty”—ten million dollars
should buy a third of the company, which would then be valued at forty
million. “It’s more like ten on fifteen or twenty,” Horowitz said, cutting the
company’s value in half. “Or six on twelve,” Andreessen said, whittling it
further. Soon after the meeting, Ringwald turned LearnUp into an enterprise
company.

Can somebody help explain how these calculations work according specifically
to the article? The numbers make no sense to me if I use the article's
explanation of this VC verbal shorthand.

"Ten on thirty" gives a $40M valuation? How? And how does "ten on fifteen"
halve the valuation - according to the article paragraph above, wouldn't that
double the valuation by investing $10M for just 15%, instead of 30%-33% equity
stake?

EDIT: Thank you for the replies. I appreciate the responses.

~~~
an4rchy
Basing it on the statement from the article this is how I read it:

10/30 gives 33%(1/3rd) at a valuation of 40 million

10 + 30 = 40

So $40 million valuation for $10 million investment which gives them 33% of
the company.

10/15 would imply 33%(1/3) at a valuation of 10+15 = 25

$25 million dollars is close to $20 million which is half of the original $40
million.

Marc's 6/12 implies 6 million investment at 18 million valuation for 50% of
the company.

~~~
CPLX
> $25 million dollars is close to $20 million which is half of the original
> $40 million.

Better yet, $15 million is precisely half of $30 million. And that number is
the pre-money (as in, the actual, now) valuation for the company.

So suggesting that a deal is "10 on 15" rather than "10 on 30" is suggesting
that the company is precisely half the valuation of the first suggestion.

------
Fede_V
It's kind of ironic that Marc Andreessen dismissed the New Yorker several
times in the past as an 'elitist east coast literary magazine' yet this
profile is absolutely fantastic, and very generous as well.

I'd be curious to hear what he thinks of it!

I also wish the article touched on Andreessen's thoughts about publicly
financed science. Basic scientific research is something that the government
puts a lot of money in too, and that should be robustly defended.

------
jgalt212
Has A16Z made a non-Series A investment in the last three years that didn't
require perfect execution and everything to break right for them to come out
ahead?

------
meritt
This is a good parallel to "The Hard Thing About Hard Things" by Ben Horowitz.
Covers a lot of the same material but gives more background on Marc.

------
downandout
It's interesting that he says that they want to shape the future - like all
VC's - and yet many of their portfolio companies [1] do no such thing. Do
ShoeDazzle and Fab really "shape the future"? There are lots of companies on
that page that, based on the description of his thought process, he shouldn't
have written checks to.

[1] [http://a16z.com/portfolio/](http://a16z.com/portfolio/)

~~~
_delirium
The article briefly touches on that incongruence (i.e. that despite
Andreessen's techno-visionary rhetoric, much of his firm's portfolio looks
like fairly typical tech companies):

 _even as you philosophize about ushering in a new age of democracy, you also
have to make money for your L.P.s. And, while the ideal startup advances both
goals, most, in truth, advance neither. The V.C. Bryce Roberts told me, “It’s
an ego game, where you want to believe you’re changing the world. But how can
you write a check to Fab and believe that giving people discounted tchotchkes
is changing the world?”_

The article then changes topic and doesn't really discuss that further though.

~~~
vasilipupkin
I think the binary thinking here is quite a bit simplistic. Think of "changing
the world" not as a zero or 1 proposition but as a continuum. Some
companies/products change the world for the better by 0.98 and some other ones
only by 0.02. That doesn't mean you shouldn't fund the 0.02s. Because a lot of
0.02 in aggregate change the world by a lot.

~~~
_delirium
Eh, I think there's a point where it gets so diluted that the argument boils
down to, "any human activity might be changing things by a little". I'm
posting quite a bit of top-quality insight here on the HN (top 50 by karma!),
so maybe my thought leadership is changing the world (by a very small amount).
Should I set up an interview where my visionary themes get celebrated?

------
oneiric
"The toilet in the powder room is so visionary, and the surrounding dimmer
lights so flattering, that I had to study it for some time to figure out how
it flushed."

What is this toilet???

~~~
jodrellblank
_What is this toilet???_

I'll take "stupid" and "badly designed" for $1.

------
7_7
I don't like it. This article looks to me like an ad piece. It has very little
substance.

There is something bothering me in this article and the "startup culture" in
general. Everyone thinks they make the world a better place. Silicon Valley's
(the TV series) satire is spot on this. No matter what half brain dead app
someone creates, it's supposed to revolutionize and "disrupt" some meaningless
aspect of our lives. Of course technology helps the man overcome many
problems, be smarter, healthier etc. But it is no panacea. We have the
technology of the 21st century with the education of 1500 as to what to do
with it. So everyone is making apps for cats or creates a temporary and
indivudual-based solution for "problems" that we shouldn't have all along
(creating additional problems). This is a huge waste of potential. If you
really want to make the world a better place focus on the things that matter.
At the very least be honest with what you are doing. Someone wants to make
money and that's fine. The probability that the the world will benefit from it
is most of the times incidental.

In some weird way am glad this was on HN.

</rant>

~~~
angersock
Fuck that.

There are companies every day trying to genuinely make the world a better
place, like the healthcare IT one that I work for, trying to open up a Steam-
like platform to do signal processing in hospitals. Or the not one but two
charity fundraising startups bootstrapping in my city. Or the test-grading
automation startup in Dallas.

And yet, because these companies aren't within walking distance of the Valley
VCs, and because they are sometimes tackling industry problems that take more
than a year to close a basic deal on (seriously, fuck hospital invoicing and
billing), they have enormous trouble getting out of the valley of startup
death because no funding available that permits easy growth. And because the
local VCs in these cities are looking for easy deals, they just fly over for
their day trips to the coast, and ignore what's in their own backyards.

So, for fuck's sake, let's not complain about the developers who are trying to
eke out a living--let's instead take a long, hard look at the market and
society that rewards them, and understand that _that_ is the root of the
problem.

EDIT: Minor clarification in paragraph two.

~~~
eevilspock
> let's not complain about the developers who are trying to eke out a living

You make it sound like developers are not one of the privileged classes in
this world, that they can't make money easier and accumulate more of it with
less physical, psychological and emotional degradation than the vast majority
of the world. That they might "only" be in the top 10% instead of the top 1%
does not make it less true.

No one in the top 10% has any business complaining except about the condition
of the bottom 50%, and then they should be doing something about it, as 7_7
suggests.

~~~
angersock
_with less physical, psychological and emotional degradation than the vast
majority of the world._

I think you're incorrect about this. I think you aren't counting the mental
and emotional toll of working on projects that get arbitrarily shitcanned, or
working 120-hour weeks because you think you'll be the king of the roach
bucket because your investors said so, or the constant dehumanization of "You
are programmer beep boop why can't you just make this business concept work?".

As far as physical hardship, look at all the folks with carpal tunnel
syndrome, obesity, diabetes, bad backs from slouching, or any of the other
issues endemic to white-collar long-hour development work.

And for all that, we're still probably just going to be me, complaining about
the working conditions and things that suck, and you, dismissing those same
issues because some Kazak iron worker works in a dangerous foundry. This is
stupid.

 _No one in the top 10% has any business complaining except about the
condition of the bottom 50%,_

See, this line of thinking expands easily: "Nobody in the top 30% has any
valid complaint, except..."

Suffering is suffering. Handcuffs are handcuffs, golden or not. Abuse is
abuse, whether it is from a shitty founder or a shitty secret policeman. Being
underpaid is being underpaid, whether it's by one dollar or a hundred
thousand.

Your line only suits the super-rich, and is a great appeal to guilt to help
people ignore how much they're getting shafted.

EDIT:

So, again, not a single act of self-abasement or renouncing of privilege is
going to do anything to help those truly in need. Face facts: there's not
enough room in the clubhouse for everyone, and we don't help ourselves by
voluntarily standing outside, unless it's with torches.

~~~
pgodzin
> As far as physical hardship, look at all the folks with carpal tunnel
> syndrome, obesity, diabetes, bad backs from slouching, or any of the other
> issues endemic to white-collar long-hour development work.

These aren't problems inherent in the profession. Not every white-collar
worker is fat with diabetes. Plenty of developers find time to work out and
take care of themselves, and being part of this 10% affords them the luxury to
get a gym membership or buy healthy food.

This is very different than someone who puts in grueling hours of manual labor
or makes a wage that puts them below the poverty line, forcing them to eat
cheap, unhealthy food every day.

~~~
angersock
So, it sounds like you don't get a lot of face-time with folks that work in
enterprise, or SMB development. You know, places with at least an hour-long
commute both ways, where the defacto lunch is something from the local wings
joint.

Or, you know, where the folks are so buried in loan and student debt that
_are_ effectively below the poverty line, but they just get to claim a nicer
cell. They're no more free than your blue-collar folks.

------
keithwhor
tl;dr:

Andreessen makes bets on technology x people. The tech has to be provocative
and world-changing, but more importantly, the people behind the tech have to
be thoughtful, bold and unique in their worldview.

Interesting points:

\- A16z makes bets on consumer tech in later rounds (more risk earlier,
increased cost later worth the more sure bet) - i.e. Oculus

\- Invests in enterprise tech earlier (less risk of a fickle consumer /
competition)

\- What's better than telling investors (or at least a16z) what they want to
hear is providing them with insight as to why their assumptions might be wrong
and you have better answers (phrased here as "It’s a delight when they look at
you with contempt—You idiot—and then walk you through the idea maze and
explain why your idea won’t work.")

Read the article, you won't regret it.

Some of my favorite excerpts:

[1] In 1996, when Horowitz was a Netscape product manager, he wrote a note to
Andreessen, accusing him of prematurely revealing the company’s new strategy
to a reporter. Andreessen wrote back to say that it would be Horowitz’s fault
if the company failed: “Next time do the fucking interview yourself. Fuck
you.” Ordinarily, relationship over. “When he feels disrespected, Marc can cut
you out of his life like a cancer,” one of Andreessen’s close friends said.
“But Ben and Marc fight like cats and dogs, then forget about it.”

[2] A16z led Airbnb’s B round. Soon afterward, the company was battered by
headlines about renters who trashed a San Francisco home. It wasn’t axe
murders, but, Chesky said, “It was a P.R. nightmare. We had just expanded from
being ten people living in a three-bedroom apartment and we had no idea how to
be a billion-dollar company. Marc came to our office at midnight and read the
letter I’d written to our community about the Airbnb Guarantee, and the two
changes he made changed the company forever. I’d said we guarantee five
thousand dollars for property damage, and he added a zero, which seemed
crazy.” Andreessen also added the proviso that claimants would have to file a
police report, which he correctly believed would discourage scam artists. “And
he told me to add my personal e-mail address. He gave us permission to be
bold.”

[3] A favorite Andreessen response to underlings’ confusion was “There are no
stupid questions, only stupid people.” Jim Barksdale, the company’s C.E.O.,
said, “I’d tell Marc after meetings, ‘You don’t have to tell a dumb sumbitch
he’s a dumb sumbitch.’ ” Andreessen told me, “I needed Netscape to work, it
had to work—it was my one-way door—so I was absolutely intolerant of anything
that got in the way”—meaning, he clarified, “people.” He could never relax: “I
am very paranoid. And the down cycle hurt a lot more than the up cycle felt
good.”

[4] [...] Peter Thiel suggests, is that Andreessen may not be as suited to
making early, counterintuitive investments as he is—a point that Andreessen
concedes: “Peter is just smarter than I am, and in a lateral way.” But, Thiel
says, Andreessen is well positioned, because of his broad knowledge and
flexible mind-set, to respond to incremental changes in an array of fields.
And that, he argues, is what the times reward: “While Twitter is a lesser
innovation than flying cars, it’s a much more valuable business. We live in a
financial age, not a technological age.”

[5] One challenge for Andreessen is whether venture itself has a skills
problem. If software is truly eating the world, wouldn’t venture capital be on
the menu? The AngelList platform now allows investors to fund startups online.
Its co-founder Naval Ravikant said that “future companies will require more
two-hundred-thousand-dollar checks and way fewer guys on Sand Hill Road.” Jeff
Fagnan, of Atlas Venture, which is the largest investor in AngelList, said,
“Software is already squeezing out other intermediaries—travel agents,
financial advisers—and, at the end of the day, V.C.s are intermediaries. We’re
all just selling cash.”

Andreessen sometimes wonders if Ravikant is onto something. He’s asked
Horowitz, “What if we’re the most evolved dinosaur, and Naval is a bird?”
Already, more than half the tech companies that reached a billion-dollar
valuation in the past decade were based outside Silicon Valley. And as
Andreessen himself wrote in 2007, before he became a V.C., “Odds are, nothing
your V.C. does, no matter how helpful or well-intentioned, is going to tip the
balance between success and failure.”

[6] He acknowledged, though, that his optimism dims once human beings—with
their illogic, hidden agendas, and sheer bugginess—enter the equation. “We’re
imperfect people pursuing perfect ideas, and there’s tremendous frustration in
the gap,” he said. “Writing code, one or two people, that’s the Platonic
ideal. But when you want to impact the world you need one hundred people, then
one thousand, then ten thousand—and people have all these people issues.” He
examined the problem in silence. “A world of just computers wouldn’t work,” he
concluded wistfully. “But a world of just people could certainly be improved.”

------
graycat
The article does seem to have a good description of how Silicon Valley venture
capital thinks and works.

Of course, again, on average the venture firms have poor ROI:

[http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/2012/07/institutional-
limit...](http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/2012/07/institutional-limited-
partners-must-accept-blame-for-poor-longterm-returns-from-venture-capital-
says-new-kauffman-report)

[http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2013/02/venture-capital-
returns.html...](http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2013/02/venture-capital-
returns.html#disqus_thread)

Yes, apparently the Silicon Valley _information technology_ (IT) venture firms
are trying to evaluate everything that comes in the door having to do with IT.
There's a problem doing this: By analogy, it's like picking dart throwers.
Only a tiny fraction of the dart throwers are actually experts, and the rest
are amateurs throwing wildly. But, there are so few experts and so many more
amateurs that, on average, nearly all the darts in the center of the target
come from lucky amateurs and not real experts. So, net, the Silicon Valley is
trying to evaluate the huge fraction of amateurs that mostly need just luck.

Much better would be to concentrate on the few real experts who need much less
in luck. "Few"? Right, but so is the number of desired successes, and the
number of real experts should be sufficient.

Then, with the article, we come to a significant point: The Silicon Valley
venture capital (VC) firms just do not know how to plan, do, and evaluate
projects from real experts.

Some people do know: The shortest description of project planning is:

Step 1: Pick a good problem.

Step 2: Use IT to get a good solution.

So, sure, in Step 1 want to solve a suitably important problem, one where the
first good or a much better solution will be a _must have_ and not just a
_nice to have_ for enough people so that the number of people times the
average earnings per person is enough to make a real _unicorn_.

Or, in crude, simple terms, maybe want a _must have_ solution for a _big ass_
problem in a _big ass_ market.

Sure, the ideal situation, although likely not in IT, would be a safe,
effective, inexpensive one pill taken once cure for any cancer. Such a project
would just "cut right through" (borrowing from the movie _Moneyball_ ) all the
nonsense about body language, _vision_ to _change the world_ , how to manage
100, 1000, 10,000 people, hard scrabble backgrounds, tone of voice, assertive
manner, clothes selections, etc.

And, sure, in Step 2 want to use IT to get the "first good or much better
solution", _defensible_ , with _barriers to entry_ , etc.

So, from the article, apparently Silicon Valley VCs don't know how to evaluate
projects that follow the two steps above.

Does anyone know how to do such evaluations? Sure:

For Step 1, that the problem being solved is suitably important should, like
the example of the cancer pill, be obvious. Right, here get to rule out
considering projects such as Fab, PopSugar, Zulily, SnapChat, AirBnb.

So, what's left is Step 2, and evaluating that is mostly just technical.

While apparently Silicon Valley is next to hopeless at evaluating new,
powerful technology, our better research universities, NSF, NIH, DARPA, etc.
are quite good, thank you.

So, an example of a project with really good technology? Sure:

[http://iliketowastemytime.com/sites/default/files/sr71_black...](http://iliketowastemytime.com/sites/default/files/sr71_blackbird_leaking_fuel_cell19.jpg)

Sorry, Marc: On my BoD I want -- it's crucial and I insist -- people who can
understand my business, including the crucial core, unique IT, and for that,
Marc, I want to know what you did in your STEM field Ph.D. program and have
done in research since. E.g., I want people like the dissertation advisors in
STEM fields in top research universities and problem sponsors at NSF, NIH,
DARPA. How many Silicon Valley VCs do you know who qualify? I want people like
those who looked at Kelly Johnson's engineering drawings and approved the
SR-71; Marc, their _batting average_ is _much_ better than yours or nearly any
VC (Chris Sacca may be on the way to being the only exception), and they fund
just off pieces of paper.

Marc, from the article your evaluations look like you would have asked Kelly
Johnson if his SR-71 could also fly to Mars and refuse to fund him unless he
enthusiastically said "Mars? Yes, and to infinity and beyond!" or some such
nonsense. Look, Marc, it was Mach 3+, 80,000+ feet, 2000+ miles without
refueling, never shot down -- as needed, as planned, as accomplished.

Marc, in simple terms, in IT, you just do not know very well what you are
doing; on my BoD, can't use you; your wildly irrational flights of nonsense
could sink my company.

~~~
vasilipupkin
While it's true that VC industry as a whole underperforms, the top firms,
including a16z perform quite well. VC industry consists of lots of dumb firms.
So, your arguments are somewhat misplaced.

~~~
graycat
Solid details on the financial performance of individual VC firms is difficult
to get in public.

Maybe A16Z is doing well, at least in _comparison_ , maybe like a WWII piston
powered fighter plane instead of a horse but still not an SR-71.

It remains: Nearly all the US high end IT is for US national security with
only meager connection with Silicon Valley VC. Telling point: Nearly no
Silicon Valley VC has the background to be a problem sponsor or project
reviewer for NSF, NIH, or DARPA.

------
lukasm
"Apple and Microsoft got started with venture money;"

Microsoft is bootstrapped

~~~
presty
[http://www.quora.com/How-much-venture-capital-did-
Microsoft-...](http://www.quora.com/How-much-venture-capital-did-Microsoft-
raise?share=1)

~~~
lukasm
Not true.

------
tdees40
One day we'll all laugh at sentences like: "Disrupt to differentiate by
becoming a dream-execution machine."

~~~
jmngomes
I think a lot people already do...

------
ThomPete
I am all for being a techno optimist but Marc comes of as someone who haven't
really understood the problems that he is helping create which is sad because
he is influential enough for it to matter.

~~~
stevenh
I'm not sure which problems you are referring to, but one problem made worse
by two of the sites he is involved with is freebooting.

Sites like Facebook and Imgur profit off of the value of original content
created by third parties in the hopes that most of the value will be squeezed
out of it before the creator notices or has a chance to send a DMCA takedown
notice.

I increasingly stumble across complaints from artists whose videos will have
as few as 150 views on YouTube, while the pirated copies that someone uploaded
directly to Facebook (with all of the true creator's information removed) have
millions of views.

One person I directly contacted was a woman named Leslie Hall, whose stolen
video on Facebook had over 20 million views, which is more than twice as many
views as all of her YouTube videos combined. She has been uploading videos to
YouTube for nearly a decade in her struggle to make a name for herself, and
when she finally got some attention, it was in a corrupted form where no one
knew her name or how to find more of her videos (other than the 0.02% of
people who bothered to use Google-fu on the lyrics to find the answer). She
also lost tens of thousands of dollars in YouTube Partnership ad revenue, de
facto stolen from her by Facebook. The comments section was full of people who
loved her, but they all had no idea who she was. Since Facebook refuses to do
the ethical bare minimum and swap freebooted viral content with a link to the
original creator's true source, all she succeeded in doing was to send a DMCA
takedown notice and get the Facebook video page deleted, destroying all of the
organic momentum that was pushing in her favor.

This problem will naturally become much worse now that Facebook has tweaked
their algorithms to heavily favor the spread of videos directly uploaded to
Facebook, while punishing external links to YouTube by automatically
preventing them from becoming as popular.

Imgur has a similar problem which is especially damaging to webcomic artists.
It is such a destructive problem that even /r/funny on reddit has banned the
practice of sharing links to rehosted webcomics. Imgur, however, is still
perfectly happy to do it. Every day you can find multiple webcomics on Imgur's
front page containing an album of half of a webcomic artist's life's work,
usually without any link to the creator's actual website. This pirated copy
gains millions of views, and the artist is left with nothing to show for it,
not even a page hit. All of those millions of views represent potential fans
who perhaps would have liked to buy a book from the artist or some other
merchandise, and the artist would have been able to pay the rent for another
year. Instead, all of that money goes to Imgur ad revenue and T-shirt sales.
Imgur also passively gets all the cognitive goodwill from their users who
mistakenly associate the pleasure of reading the stolen comics with Imgur,
rather than with the artist where it belongs. Most artists I inform of this
theft are incredibly sad about it but have already reached the stage where
they feel utterly defeated and helpless.

I feel that some sort of reform is needed to compel large sites to implement
something similar to the Content ID system on YouTube, or at least require due
diligence in finding the true creator and 302 redirecting the link of the
stolen copy to the true source.

------
kondro
This is completely off-topic but I find it so hard to convince myself to read
a 14,000 word (or any other long-form) article anymore.

At least the New Yorker doesn't try to maximise ad revenue by splitting this
across 25 pages.

~~~
nodata
kondro stood there facing towards us with his john lennon style glasses that
looked like he had recently been to a high-end designer shop. the glasses had
black thin rims as he surveyed his audience with friendly blah blah blah

Too much detail. The New Yorker should produce a tl;dr version like The
Economist does ([http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2014/11/economist-
es...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2014/11/economist-espresso))

~~~
po
Maybe you're not their target audience? I think the New Yorker is geared
toward people who like the process of reading and enjoy when the author paints
a picture in their mind. If you just want the tl;dr version, then there's
other places to go. I think it's nice that they reach a different kind of
audience.

------
cyphunk
Just a reminder that this is the same guy that calls snowden a traitor

~~~
mk00
Just a reminder that not everyone agrees with you

~~~
CyberDildonics
Well it was in writing so I'm not sure what more you want, it isn't really an
subjective thing.

------
alexandersingh
Marc, you grow an excellent beard.

------
mathattack
Given how prolific he is on Twitter [0] I'm curious if he writes his own
tweets.

[0] [https://twitter.com/pmarca](https://twitter.com/pmarca)

------
marincounty
"She told me that Andreessen satisfied most of the criteria on her checklist:
he was a genius, he was a coder, he was funny, and he was bald. (“I find it
incredibly sexy to see the encasement of a cerebrum,” she explained.) For his
part, Andreessen felt that “she was spectacular! My biggest concern was that
she wanted to live a jet-set life.” In one of the seventeen e-mails he sent
her the next day, he asked, “What’s your ideal evening?” She responded, “Stay
home, do e-mail, make an omelette, watch TV, take a bath, go to bed.”

This is a bit much? I do wish the down to earth couple well! That's the one
positive about being broke; you never need to second quess their motives?

