

Marc Andreesen on Charlie Rose. Something for everyone here. - lennysan
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3628271656800759125&hl=en

======
physcab
Interesting video. This makes me wonder what the next truly disruptive
technology will be. First there was oil, then the semiconductor, then
internet.

As a materials scientist, I have to wonder whether the next disruptive force
will come from something in the physical form or take a virtual form. Of
course these things are impossible to predict, but its fascinating to look at
how technology is innovating within my field.

For example, one idea that I hear often is a shift from the printing paper
industry (which I agree is a dead industry) to a printing electronics
industry. There is no reason why this technology cannot be re-used to innovate
another industry that is taking another form. There is huge potential in
organic electronics and printable displays.

Similarly, I believe optics are poised for an "it works" button, as Andreesen
says. We've already seen the benefits of fiber optics as tremendously fast
information travel, but we're ready to see optical computing and other
advanced imaging techniques come into the mainstream.

Lastly, we're going to see much more intelligent applications of past ideas.
In the past, people would keep to their respective disciplines and innovate
within them. Now, everyone is adopting multiple disciplines. We're seeing
people who use quantum chemistry to make new materials, intelligent computing
and statistics to organize information, and old materials techniques to
revolutionize medicine.

If you don't re-train in multiple fields, you will be left in the dust. This
is how innovation will continue in the future.

~~~
wallflower
> Interesting video. This makes me wonder what the next truly disruptive
> technology will be.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd law of Prediction

I believe when/if we get to the point that mobile electronics are disposable
and/or able to be _personally fabricated_ in a couple minutes that will be a
stepping stone (e.g. personal technology no longer a commodity but close to
free.). And, add in the matrix (e.g. blending virtual reality with reality
[augmented reality] and or redefining reality [the Meta-verse from
[Stephenson's Snow Crash"]) and we will be close to living in a world we can
only imagine now.

I recommend MIT's Technology Review. I was a long-time subscriber but just let
it run out.

<http://technologyreview.com/>

------
antiismist
Marc Andreesen said that Facebook doesn't run brand advertising by design.
Anyone know why this is the case?

Even though I don't like advertising generally, I'd much rather look at a
well-crafted Nike / Apple creative than the weight loss / degree mill tribal
fusionish junk they run now.

~~~
sam_in_nyc
The name of the game at Facebook is building a giant company over the course
of a decade. They're looking to get _billions_ using facebook. So, any user
that quits facebook now, taking into account that the growth is based on the
current number of users, actually means that many more users _won't_ join in
the future. If you're planning things around a decade of growth, then you come
to think of one user leaving facebook now as 10-100 users leaving facebook by
a decade from now.

My guess is the ad system they have now is just to test the waters... get the
team learning the ins and outs, improving the system's algorithms and
reporting capabilities, etc. Running _branded_ ads is much more of a
significant move: they're clearly ads, and not so much some sort of pseudo-
relevant text ad. In other words, branded ads are much harder (as a user) to
ignore, and would lead to a stifle in growth -- the absolute last thing that
Facebook wants.

~~~
antiismist
Building the company long term does appear to be their strategy. But their ads
are so low quality that they are, in fact, distracting. Surely running some
nice creatives would be better?

------
thinkcomp
At risk of criticizing an industry legend, "If they don't make money today,
they easily could," rings false. My guess would be that Facebook will acquire
Ning long before this happens.

~~~
josefresco
Andreesen lives in a billionaire fantasy world where the normal rules that
apply to you and I when accepting VC money just don't apply. They can look 'to
the horizon' for their revenue model while we have to have it baked in from
day 1. He's earned it, so good for him, but I wouldn't start taking any
lessons from what he says to Charlie for your own startup.

The fact that Facebook doesn't consider 175 million users to be a sufficient
audience for revenu should tell you something about the scale of company they
(believe) are running and funding.

~~~
volida
You really believe that "Facebook doesn't consider 175 million users"?

------
mfhughes
Two observations about his investment thesis:

1\. He says you can build companies with "almost no money": $100k - $1M, if I
recall correctly.

2\. He says you can delay profi^H^H^H^H^H revenue almost indefinitely by
looking out on the horizon.

So given these two facts, when exactly do the founders/managers/employees (all
of which are young kids by his own admission) start getting paid real money,
like the amount required to buy a house in the Santa Clara valley?

Is payoff 100% contingent on a liquidity event and/or perpetual venture
capitalization, thereby diluting founders' capital stock further and further?
Are his venture founders supposed to continue living in apartments
indefinitely while he looks on from his mansion in Atherton and architects the
final vision to be realized a decade or more from assignment of preferred
stock?

His whole management vision starts to look more and more like serfdom the
longer you think about it. The immediate analog that springs to mind is the
A&R practices of the music industry in which they sign young, naive bands to
contracts that essentially bind them into a period of servitude under the
guise of a promise of fame and fortune (to be realized in spades at a later
date TBD, just trust us guys, you're gonna be rich and famous!!!) while paying
for their operating costs with a future claim on earnings.

This comparison only gets stronger than it already is when you realize that
most financially successful musicians make their money from touring and
merchandising - realizing their own revenue in small, and sometimes
incremental ways until they get a successful fan/customer base.

I mean the whole analogy seems rather obvious to me, and I believe we as
(young entrepreneurs of) an industry should learn the lessons of the
music/entertainment industry - am I totally wrong here?

I see no difference between Marc Andreesen and David Geffen. Except one lives
in SF and one lives in LA.

~~~
webwright
First of all, there's a supply/demand issue here. There are a gazillion kids
looking to A) break into the music business and B) spin up their own consumer
software startup. Guess what? As a result, you don't get to live really well
unless you make it.

Making it obviously includes a liquidity even, but it can also include great
success pre-revenue and/or pre-profit. How do you think senior management at
Ning is doing, salary-wise? Howabout Twitter? Digg?

The serfdom remark is just wrong. It's not serfdom-- it's sharing risk. He's
risking a pile of (admittedly someone else's) money. You're risking...
absolutely nothing if you're getting paid close to market rates. The closer
you get to a sure thing that everyone is going to get rich (or at least get
all of their cash back), the more entitled you are a market rate salary.

No one is forcing you to accept his terms. You lose nothing by punting your
own startup a few years into it and getting a job at any time-- except
whatever you haven't vested.

~~~
mfhughes
Yeah, that's kind of my point, which is to find a way to do it on your own
terms instead of accepting "almost no money" for what is most certainly going
to be a significant equity concession in your company.

