

The Problem With Marc Andreessen - ctkrohn
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/26/the-problem-with-marc-andreessen/

======
blader
I don't understand.

The man created the web browser, built multiple billion dollar companies,
angel invested and sits on the board of Facebook, and is now one of the most
well known VCs in the world - and this is saying what - that he's not as good
as Felix thinks he could be?

What the hell has Felix Salmon ever done?

I'm seeing more and more of this: pundits and armchair entrepreneurs online
who just can't help but tear down people who went in the arena and worked
their asses off and built something.

Shut up and go build something people want.

~~~
unreal37
I think there is a point in the original article that is perhaps overstated
but nonetheless mainly true - Andreessen is being hailed as one of the great
entrepreneurs of our time by Wired. But really, his main skill is building
companies that don't make much money and selling them to other companies. He
has never really created anything of long-term value. He's no Warren Buffet or
Bill Gates.

~~~
ma2rten
And why is this a bad thing? I don't see why it makes a difference if the
company continues to exist on it's own or as part of another company.

~~~
wmf
True. I think the point is more that these companies made no profits while
they were independent and then continued to make no profits after they were
acquired; thus in retrospect the acquirers must have overpaid.

~~~
ma2rten
Except that this line of reasoning assumes that the people who run the
acquiring company are morons. This is quite a strong assumption to make
without any further evidence. I think neither of us knows enough about HP's
fiances to make that claim (I presume you were talking about Opsware).

------
waterlesscloud
The article presents an interesting point of view that I think is probably
goes too far. It's not Marc's fault if the giant lumbering behemoths that buy
companies don't know what to do with them. That's almost intrinsic in their
natures, actually, that they'll screw it up. Even the best tech companies do
it time and again, and with very good properties.

But this line in particular stands out- "...buy its stake in the shadowy
secondary market instead."

Come on. Shadowy? Really? Making it sound like he's buying plutonium or
something.

~~~
mcphilip
A recent WSJ article uses the same terminology [1]. Also, it's common to refer
to things as shadowy in financial markets. Shadow banking system, dark pools
of liquidity, etc. Calling something a shadow market is a way to describe a
market characterized by asymmetric information, basically.

[1]
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870389970457620...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204911626387514.html)

~~~
waterlesscloud
Fair point, though I do think there's a notable difference in implications of
"shadow market" and "shadowy market", more than the one extra letter would
indicate.

------
lbo
Netscape's core was reborn as Firefox. Netscape invented the image tag, along
with much of what we consider essential to what the internet is today. Most
here would probably attest that it was also the superior product in its day,
only losing out to IE thanks to questionably legal monopoly muscling from MS.

Opsware was purchased for $1.6bn by HP, hardly a failure...

Andreesen has a strong history of execution and value generation and Netscape
was a pioneer, not a cheap shareholder exploitation vehicle. This article is
grasping at straws.

Edit: Clearly HP the thought Opsware was extremely valuable at the time of
purchase and the author provides no evidence to support his claim that it was
not a good purchase for HP. According to comments on the article, Opsware's
product still exists and has simply been rebranded.

~~~
raganwald
_Opsware was purchased for $1.6bn by HP, hardly a failure..._

The thesis of the article is that Marc has been very successful at selling
things, but that these things have not been so successful for the people who
bought them from him. I don't think you are at odds with the author if you're
saying that Marc has been successful at making money.

~~~
lbo
The article didn't actually give any evidence as to why Opsware was a bad
purchase for HP, and according the comments in the article the product still
exists and has simply been rebranded.

I suppose I was trying to imply with the $1.6bn price tag that clearly HP
thought the product was immensely valuable and I thought "who is the author to
say that they were so wrong without a shard of evidence?" Admittedly, I failed
to actually draw this line of reasoning in the post at all and have no reason
to suppose others would infer it as well.

------
rollypolly

      they’re primarily interested in buying into any company,
      no matter how flash-in-the-pan, where Andreessen Horowitz
      can exit its investment for a large multiple of whatever
      it bought in at.
    

It's worth mentioning that this behavior isn't unique to Andreessen Horowitz.

This also makes me wonder if this type of attitude might be hurting the long
term prospects of our economy.

~~~
dredmorbius
Yes, it is.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking>

------
srconstantin
You don't see something...Ponzi-scheme-ish about the industry? I may not be
especially familiar with this, but it _sounds_ like:

1\. Man makes short-lived company that makes him rich quickly. 2\. Man makes
money investing in other short-lived companies that make their founders rich
quickly. 3\. Successful founders grow up to make money investing in still
other short-lived companies.

Maybe I'm totally misinterpreting this, but if there's any truth to this
version of the story, it seems like it's heading for disaster. I've already
met a lot of startup founders who insist that profitability doesn't matter.
How on earth is that attitude sustainable?

~~~
ma2rten
People seem to use the word Ponzi-scheme quite loosely these days, but this is
not one. I don't know if this is news to you, but it is not a secret, that VCs
do invest in companies under the premise that they get sold or they do an IPO
(sell to the public). This is because they need to get a return on their
investment.

However, these companies get bought by bigger companies, who drive some real
value from buying them. If the big company screws it up or decides to
integrate the product in their own, that does not make it a Ponzi-scheme.

~~~
srconstantin
I probably phrased it too strongly, but I'm legitimately confused. Something
seems...unsettlingly short-term here. I shouldn't have called it a "Ponzi
scheme." But perhaps "speculation."

~~~
ma2rten
I guess you're right in a sense, but I think it's quite harmless compared to
other things people call "investment" (simply because of it's size).
Capitalism is all about the short-term and capitalism is system we live in.

------
andrewfelix
I think the problem is with publications like Wired and Fast Company. They
tend to gush and over exaggerate the achievements of their subjects while
glossing over real problems. Everything is 'world changing', 'revolutionary'
and 'disruptive'.

Fast Company is the worst offender. They rarely critically analyse anything.

~~~
andrewljohnson
It's interesting to me how tangential comments tend to rise to the top so much
on HN.

Your opinion is fair and all, and I'll believe you follow those publications
and have a basis for making the claim. But you could have easily written this
comment without having read a word of the article - is that really the best
comment for the top of the page?

~~~
andrewfelix
I'm not looking to get the top comment, it's just an observation. If you feel
it doesn't belong here down-vote it.

I don't think my comment is tangential. It helps explain why the original
WIRED article didn't offer legitimate criticism of Marc Andreessen.

~~~
rhizome
Another way of looking at it, and probably what WIRED people would say, is
that they don't run badmouth stories, ergo if the story was going to have a
negative tone they simply might not run it at all.

~~~
andrewfelix
Critical Analysis and badmouthing aren't the same thing. Plenty of
publications get good interviews with polarising figures while critically
analysing their achievements.

~~~
rhizome
Right. I'm speaking of WIRED specifically.

~~~
andrewfelix
My point is WIRED can critically analyse without badmouthing.

~~~
rhizome
They could, but they don't.

------
ggchappell
As long as we're being accurate:

> His single greatest achievement — the creation of the world’s first web
> browser, Mosaic — took place under the auspices of the National Center for
> Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois.

All correct, except for "first". The world's first web browser was
WorldWideWeb[1], written by Tim Berners-Lee. But I suppose it is true that
Mosaic was the first browser that got noticed by anyone other than the Chosen
Few.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldWideWeb>

~~~
smacktoward
If we want to really get pedantic, Mosaic was a "first" -- the first WWW
browser to support embedding inline images in Web pages. Previous browsers
were text-only; you could post images, but they could only be linked to, not
displayed directly inside a page. That made the WWW too similar to Gopher
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_%28protocol%29>) to really break out in
popularity. Mosaic's support for inline graphics is what caused the Web's
first real wave of general interest outside academia.

More here: [http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/04/0422mosaic-web-
br...](http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/04/0422mosaic-web-browser/)

~~~
dredmorbius
The modifier you're looking for is "first _graphical_ WWW browser".

~~~
smacktoward
Not really; that would include any WWW browser with a GUI interface (like the
original WorldWideWeb on NeXTSTEP).

~~~
dredmorbius
Notepad is a GUI text editor.

MS Paint is a _graphical_ editor.

An application can have a GUI without being graphical. I'll confess to never
having used WorldWideWeb on a NeXT box, though vids suggest it didn't do much
in the way of typesetting or graphical rendering.

------
siavosh
I'm seeing something very similar happening in SV as happened in Wallstreet
prior to when the big mess began in 2008: the media generated cult of
personality for people who make money, not successful lasting companies.

~~~
TDL
I have no problem with making money (even lots of it), but I agree with you
that building personality cults is a bad practice by elements within the
media. Nothing wrong with deflating personality cults, however, I don't think
this article accomplishes that task. This piece smells of a hit piece and
typically makes the author looks worse than the intended target.

------
patmeckham
The problem with Andreeson is he doesn't aim to build anything that is built
to last.

Having his creations be acquired for substantial sums by nervous corporations
(who proceed to let them die) serves no one but Andreeson himself and his
investors.

As a consumer, I value programs like netpbm, feh, ffmpeg and mplayer far more
than Netscape and all the monolithic browser crap that has followed. I can
rely on the former programs year after year.

By contrast, Andreeson offers little to consumers. His best programmer at
Netscape was put out of job and now runs a nightclub. I think that says it
all. Andreeson is not improving the world of software and technology. He has
no intention of building things that last. He's in it to make a quick buck.
Quality and consumers be damned.

~~~
davidmr
That's selling jwz a little short, my friend. A better way to say that would
be "got rich as fuck and bought a nightclub", but that doesn't really fit your
angle.

------
nrao123
IF you apply the high standards that the author is applying to andreesen than
there may not be more than a handful of entrepreneurs who meet that criteria.
When apple eventually loses its luster 20 yrs from now, you could write an
article saying what did Steve jobs achieve? It's the most idiotic article I
have read about a person who started 3 really great companies.

------
aswanson
Marc kicked off an information sharing revolution the likes of which humanity
has never seen prior. Even if someone had come along a year later and made a
browser the masses could use, that's still tantamount to a civilizational
change delayed a _year_. Felix the Hater should reconsider.

------
jcc80
Page view journalism. "Hmm...that article on how AH should have made more from
the Instagram deal blew up. What other negative angle can I take on these guys
while their 'hot' to juice some page views?"

------
stevenj
Marc.

------
carguy1983
Anyone know what the p in pmarca stands for?

~~~
LiveTheDream
At his old company everyone had a public email address which was their first
name + last initial, and a "private" one that was the public one preceded by
the letter "p".

