

Tim O'Reilly: Stop throwing sheep, do something worthy - raghus
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10045321-2.html

======
rgrieselhuber
In reading some of the comments here, I wonder if O'Reilly's point is being
addressed?

Most of the focus in the comments is on what makes a viable business model
(ad-supported vs. pay-for-use) or a rational valuation (is Slide really worth
half a billion?), but my reading made me think that O'Reilly was trying to get
people focus on something bigger, specifically, is what you're working on
worthwhile?

Like, if you got hit by a bus tomorrow, will you consider your life well-spent
to have built that sheep thrower when you could have been doing something
else?

~~~
bbgm
He was definitely emphasizing a focus on something "bigger" and a shift away
from many of the current crop of apps/startups. Can't say I disagree with him
either. There are so many smart people out there. We can definitely do more.

------
Eliezer
I think a good rule of thumb at this point is to be extremely skeptical of
anything advertising supported. If people won't pay you, are you really
creating enough value to society to justify awarding yourself any warm
fuzzies?

I suppose exceptions could be made for services like Google, which people
would pay $1000/year for if that's what all the providers charged, but which
happen to be advertising-supported.

"Make something people want enough to pay for." Now there's a terrifying
heuristic.

~~~
nostrademons
This was exactly the common wisdom in 01/02. And then the economy turned
around, and ad-supported was all the rage again.

So you're right - _now_. But if you've got enough cash to wait out the
downturn, ad-supported businesses could be very profitable. It's always a
mistake to try and extrapolate the present out indefinitely...

~~~
anthonyrubin
I don't think the question is whether or not you can run a profitable ad-
supported business. The question is whether your product truly matters if
people wouldn't pay for it.

I believe there are ad-supported products that matter, but I'm tired of being
advertised to. I will pay for good products.

~~~
altay
How will you find them?

~~~
DougBTX
When was the last time you first heard of a startup through a paid-for ad?
(And then spent money on the service, or clicked on an ad shown by that
startup and bought something there?)

------
azharcs
I totally agree with O'Reilly, Companies like Slide and RockYou do not deserve
half a billion valuation and I am pretty much sure Max Levchin can do better
than make social apps for Social-Networks.

~~~
tptacek
How do you decide what's worth half a billion dollars? If a social network app
will drive half a billion dollars worth of advertising profit over N years,
then it's worth half a billion dollars, even if the same effort is better
spent combating malaria.

~~~
brandonkm
Advertising revenues on social networks have historically been pretty poor.

I think what O'Reilly was getting at was people forming their startups that
essentially chase the latest trends in what now amounts to a bubble. He makes
a valid argument and we could all be looking back at what he said in the
future and only realize then just how spot on he was.

~~~
tptacek
I think you're probably right, but I also think there's a lazy argument out
there that you could go halt malaria instead of making ad money, and that's a
stupid argument; make the ad money and spend it on malaria if you're that
committed.

~~~
cstejerean
You don't have to fight malaria or stop making money form ads. If you're going
to make an ad supported app at least make it do something useful (GMail is one
example of a useful ad supported app).

~~~
tptacek
That's an argument against the entire entertainment industry. This is a debate
over aesthetics, and I don't have much more to say about it.

------
dfranke
I think Tim is behind the curve on this one and startups have already stepped
up to this challenge. Startups that create social networks or other semi-
frivolous toys have already had a stigma attached to them for at least a year
now.

~~~
quasimojo
tell me a startup that is not creating a frivolous toy

~~~
DaniFong
We're aiming to create practical, beautiful, inexpensive compressed air
powered vehicles.

~~~
zhyder
(Warning: Following comment irrelevant to OP's subject.) Wow, that's amazing!
There're so many interesting mechanical (and electro-mechanical) innovations
on your Technology page. My appreciation for _Hacker_ News just went up
several notches since it's attracting folks like you. Are you funded? I hope
so.

Who else is building such stuff that isn't _just_ computer
science/engineering?

~~~
DaniFong
We're of course intending to raise funds. At this stage we're writing the
business plan, putting together the engineering drawings, doing simulations,
and sourcing components for the first prototype build. We'll be moving into
fundraising mode soon.

------
bokonist
The other day I had a crazy realization. If you add up the actual labor time
required to create a lifetime's worth of standard goods and services, you get
something like 5-10 man years. You can do something "worthy" that makes humans
more productive, but since we are already so productive it doesn't make a huge
difference. The $64,000 question is, if technology has increased our
productivity so much over the past 50 years, why are we actually working more
hours, and liking our jobs less? Why aren't we all retiring at 30 to do what
we love?

~~~
alexkay
Because "standard goods and services" are redefined as productivity increases.
20 years ago we couldn't afford half the stuff that is "standard" now.

~~~
quasimojo
AMEN. go into any food bank and ask the "clients" how many of them have cable
tv and cell phones with data plans

~~~
bokonist
Food is considerably more expensive than cable tv and cell phones.

~~~
anamax
Cable TV is about $100/month. Let's call it $25/week or $3/day.

Yuppie beans are around $3/pound, so $1/day should do for protein. Carbs in
the form of rice or potatoes are cheaper. Veggies and fruit are about the
same.

In other words, food can be about as expensive as cable tv.

------
iigs
If the iBeer thing is what I think it is, it's an application that will find
you the nearest store to purchase beer when you tap the glass with your
finger.

I don't see how that's some scathing critique of the devolution of society,
moreso than the phone itself at least.

People can ignore what's going on in the world and contribute to the "downfall
of society" or choose to live in a perpetual state of guilt about the success
that the "first world" lives in at the moment, neither has a moral high
ground. Your attitude doesn't matter -- but your contribution does.

The fact that the US is losing its edge in technology has as much to do with
the rest of the world catching up or exceeding where we are. That's not cause
for tears and somber attitudes, that's the third world gaining prosperity and
health, and the second world joining the first world party. The luddites and
idiots have been a problem as long as there has been humanity; that they've
been in a leadership role in the US is a minor anomoly at best, and a self
solving problem at worst.

I'm almost the perfect pessimist, but even I'm seeing the glass as half full
at this point in history. Web 2.0's pretty overrated on the whole though --
maybe he could reclaim the conference time for something more useful.

~~~
dmose
No I think he's talking about the app that uses the accelerometer to simulate
chugging a beer. That's it.

------
snorkel
I am proud of not knowing what "throwing sheep" meant because it is Facebook
related afterall.

~~~
hugh
Do you also enjoy telling people that you don't watch television?

~~~
Eliezer
Television rots the brain. Only watch anime on your computer monitor.

~~~
gruseom
_Television rots the brain_

Like crack cocaine! <http://www.tvshowsondvd.net/graphics/news3/KiTHHat.jpg>

~~~
gruseom
Ouch. Guess I'm the only Kids in the Hall fan here.

~~~
menloparkbum
Big fan. Unfortunately, only over-the-hill Canadians (or near-Canadians) would
catch the reference. I'll reimburse you one karma point.

~~~
gruseom
_Unfortunately, only over-the-hill Canadians_

Has it really come to that? :) Well, the reference _was_ from the later
crappier seasons.

------
ivankirigin
In his Ignite Boston talk he basically said "startups are not where it's at.
do something that matters"

~~~
hugh
Startups, or only frivolous (sheep-throwing) startups?

~~~
ivankirigin
It was an overly broad statement, for sure

------
aditya
Here's the video: <http://blip.tv/play/AbTEA4a8DQ>

------
Tichy
So basically, creating games is not worthy? How about creating art, or
creating music? Writing novels?

------
wensing
This summary is more robust: [http://greensear.ch/2008/09/18/tim-oreilly-
keynote-at-the-we...](http://greensear.ch/2008/09/18/tim-oreilly-keynote-at-
the-web-20-expo/)

And I found out through a Google Alert that O'Reilly mentioned Stormpulse.

------
HeyLaughingBoy
In a way, I hate to say it because I'm the kind of person who always thinks
that people should do with their time or resources whatever they damn well
please. BUT I wonder the same thing all the time: why are all these smart
people spending their effort on yet another social/media website when there
are so many other profitable or meaningful businesses to start.

------
ojbyrne
While reading the part - "and certainly aren't helping the environment by
distributing tons of press kits and swag--not to mention flying in hundreds of
attendees in a massive spurt of carbon emissions." - I got the feeling that
the author wanted to continue on to say O'Reilly makes his money selling dead
trees, but stopped short.

------
13ren
If we're headed for a depression: what business types flourished during the
Great Depression?

Is it really true that facilitating laughter and connection isn't worthy?

~~~
hellfishburnsy
Entertainment flourished. People needed a way to forget their troubles, even
if it's temporary.

~~~
yters
Escapist entertainment only helps proliferate troubles. We need entertainment
that improves us too. Classically, it was thought the two go hand in hand.

------
thomasmallen
You can't funnel creativity. For every satellite we send to Mars, there will
be 20,000 things like SuperPoke and iBeer, and that's not a problem.

------
jamescoops
he is echoing bubblegeneration.com

------
time_management
Amen.

For all the buzz about "Facebook apps", has anyone looked at most of these
things? Bug-ridden, ugly, utter shit. Facebook is slouching toward the
Gomorrah of clutter. I hope something better comes along. I never liked
Facebook (originally Thefacebook, lulz-on-a-vomit-pie) or that Zuckerberg
clown, and I only use it because my friends do.

Sheep-throwing is a case of the exception attempting to _drive_ the rule.
SuperPoke is a mediocre idea that has achieved some measure of viral success.
It makes "success" (high user count) look _easy_ , and that's a catchy idea to
many people. Does the "Million Dollar Homepage" really scale? Of course not,
but it's an attractive idea that some kid out there can make $1m from a
mediocre, one-flash concept.

With the right infrastructure and some luck, mediocre ideas _can_ lead to
smashing success, even reliably. Take the board game _Monopoly_. The design of
the game is quite primitive; not nearly on the level of _Settlers of Catan_ ,
much less _Tigris and Euphrates_ or _Puerto Rico_. But mass-producing and
marketing a board game during the Great Depression was not easy, and there was
a high barrier to entry, so the designer who was able to surmount this barrier
was able to collect. Now that the barrier to entry for most ideas is low, the
mediocre ideas that achieve lasting success are going to be _very_ rare.

In terms of the money and talent being wasted on mediocre ideas, one source of
this problem is inherent to the VC culture. MBAs, by definition, are risk-
averse people. It's an incredibly risk-averse move to trade two years and
$100,000 (if you have, or can borrow, the money) for an assurance of elevated
career status. Elite MBA programs are, compared to similar law, medical, or
PhD programs, extremely unselective, and getting an MBA is a way to reach the
executive level by (wait for it) schmoozing and taking classes-- in other
words, without accomplishing or risking anything. To the extent that most VCs
are elite MBAs, _of course_ they're going to be throwing their money after me-
too social networking sites, which can be compared to other such sites on
paper-- rather than original ideas that only the marketplace can evaluate.
Investing money in social networking and "Web 2.0" is like buying the
proverbial IBM, for which nobody was ever fired.

------
quasimojo
the market will sort it out. have any of the yc guys gotten rich lately? in
the end, no one but the franciscans is really interested in a vow of poverty.

beyond seed capital it doesn't even seem that rockyou and slide are swimming
in cash. from yelp to loopt to twitter...at some point it will be put up or
shut up on the revenue side.

