
2005 Zuckerberg Didn't Want To Take On The World - JJMalina
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/13/2005-zuckerberg-didnt-want-to-take-over-the-world/
======
thinkcomp
2005 Zuckerberg also lied point-blank when he claimed that nothing like The
Facebook existed at Harvard (1:32 in the video). He knew about it, was a
member and heavy user during the period in which he coded his version
(<http://www.thinkpress.com/authoritas/timeline.pdf>). He repeated this false
claim in his talk at Stanford's ETL lecture series and I find it absolutely
infuriating.

It's also relevant that Mark appears so non-chalant about the whole endeavor
in the video. That's more or less how he came off when I spoke to him a month
before the site launched, except he was more coy, refusing to divulge what he
was actually working on. It didn't sound like a business seeking venture
capital financing whatever it was, and so I had no reason to think I should
get involved. Nor did I suspect that he was actually willing to torpedo our
relationship by copying my work feature for feature, seeking funding without
mentioning it, and simultaneously asking for advice. Nor did I suspect
anything about the fact that he was searching my Facebook for "winklevoss."

And yes, I've moved on, but each time these lies are uncovered fresh, no one
else takes him to task for them.

~~~
blhack
You really should let this go. People have already made up their minds about
facebook, and who created it, and where the ideas came from.

Even if those people are wrong, it doesn't matter. They've already decided.

When people read or hear things like what you're posting in this thread, it
reflects poorly on you. Yeah, it absolutely sucks if things played out the way
that you say they did, but being upset about it isn't going to improve
anything.

To paraphrase a hacker friend of mine:

"Write shit, build shit, write about building shit...let them know you by the
trail of [original content] that you leave behind"

The first time I've ever heard of you was in this thread. Right now, instead
of knowing you as

"Aaron, a brilliant hacker working on facecash and doing cool things.",

I know you as

"Aaron, somebody who is really caught up on a dispute he had with a college
associate almost 7 years ago."

If the latter is the perception you want people to have of you, continue
making noise about your dispute with facebook, otherwise, don't.

~~~
bbq
"You really should let this go. People have already made up their minds about
facebook, and who created it, and where the ideas came from.

Even if those people are wrong, it doesn't matter. They've already decided."

Is it just me or is this the completely wrong attitude to take towards
history?

~~~
blhack
Towards history? I'm talking about this _one_ _very specific_ situation.

You're also taking those lines out of context. I'm saying that he is hurting
his reputation because things like comments in a hn thread aren't going to
change peoples' minds.

~~~
bbq
"Towards history? I'm talking one this one very specific situation."

Have you ever read a (U.S.) high school history textbook? They bring a
similarly simplifying tone to the thousands of singular specific situations in
the past and it does everyone a disservice.

"You're also taking those lines out of context."

I'm guilty of this, yes. I suppose what it comes down to is that I do not
share your line of reasoning; Aaron's reputation is not hurt in my eyes.

~~~
blhack
This isn't a high school history text book, this is a conversation some
hackers are having early on a sunday morning.

~~~
bbq
All I can say is you're missing the forest for the trees

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2883641>

------
Swizec
Just goes to show, you don't need a grand vision, all you need is a vision you
believe is achievable. Once you've reached it, there's always enough juice to
re-asses and readjust. With enough luck you will take over the world.

This probably also helps in getting the people around you to take you
seriously.

~~~
mikeleeorg
David Kirkpatrick's book, "The Facebook Effect"[1] seems to gel with Mark's
vision and attitude about Facebook in this video - that he's an ambitious &
smart guy who started with a relatively small idea, and kind of stumbled upon
its evolution into a much grander vision.

According to the book and Wikipedia[2], there was even a time when Mark was
even more focused on another idea of his, Wirehog. It's possible he may have
even had some doubts about Facebook, or lost interest in it for a little
while.

And hey, what startup founder hasn't had those thoughts? They're totally
natural. I'm sure some have a razor-sharp focus & vision from Day One, but I
would never fault a founder for having a few shaky moments of doubt here &
there.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Facebook-Effect-Inside-Company-
Connect...](http://www.amazon.com/Facebook-Effect-Inside-Company-
Connecting/dp/1439102120/)

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirehog>

------
jhdavids8
"So, um, like", "So, um, like"...videos like this of Zuckerberg really
irritate me. Of course he didn't want to take over the world, he simply saw a
profitable idea (after it was given to him by someone else) and took advantage
of that. The main reason someone takes an idea that isn't theirs is for their
personal gain, not because they truly want to do something substantial. Only
someone who has the initial idea, someone who sees the problem area and can
see a way to fix it, those are the ones capable of changing the world for the
better (ok, ok, the Winklevoss twins probably didn't want to change the world
for the better, but at least they had that initial thought). Otherwise, you're
left with some d-bag taking advantage of something someone else saw simply for
personal, profitable reasons. This video is proof the guy is no 'trendsetter'
in technology. Hell, he sounds like a dude who was briefed on what exactly
Facebook is 10 minutes before the interview.

~~~
philwelch
How many startups have a long term plan to take over the world from the very
beginning? If you interviewed Bill Gates back when Micro-Soft was making BASIC
interpreters, would you get the slightest sense of what Microsoft is today? Or
Steve Jobs when Apple was selling the Apple II? How about Larry and Sergey
when Google was just a search engine? I think they would seem a little more
concerned with where their business was at the time and a little oblivious of
what it would grow into.

~~~
jhdavids8
I would be shocked if any of those you mentioned would say "There doesn't
necessarily have to be anything more after this" when asked what was next for
their company. All mentioned were probably concerned with the current projects
at their company during the early times, but all were also probably looking
towards expanding their company as well. Oh, and I'd be shocked if any of them
would be interviewed with a red 'frat' cup in their hand or with their co-
founders doing keg stands as well.

~~~
philwelch
I'll admit, it's hard to imagine any of those guys drinking beer from a keg,
out of a red cup. I'm not sure that Zuckerberg's lack of media training and
fondness for cheap beer at the time was a bad thing. In 2005 a fair chunk of
Facebook's users were doing keg stands and drinking beer out of red cups.

Apple, in its early days, was Woz thinking "hey, I can build a cheap computer"
and Jobs thinking "hey, I can sell people Woz's computer". I don't know what
he would have said if you asked him what was next. I'm sure the Mac wasn't on
his mind, and neither was becoming the most valuable company in the world by
selling cell phones.

------
biot
Similar to how Larry & Sergey were shopping their search engine around for $1
million [0]. They certainly weren't looking to organize the world's
information at that time.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#Financing_and_initial_pu...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#Financing_and_initial_public_offering)

------
nxn
People really like to try to make him look bad; I mean, is it just me or does
this article portray him to be some clueless dimwit that was standing on a
goldmine and didn't know it until his face hit the ground so hard that he
finally saw the shiny gold stars?

The reality is that it's very difficult to know what ground you're standing on
until you dig deep enough to just see it with your own eyes. Predicting the
future and investing in that wishful vision is a much more risky strategy than
just acknowledging the current moment and trying to lead it closer to where
you'd like it to go. I do not know whether he looked at the situation in this
type of manner or not, but that's how I justify facebook's success.

As a side note, I wish people would stop pretending they never drank out of a
big red cup before.

------
desushil
Of course he didn't want to take over the world. No wonders, most of the so
called "Next Big Thing" goes this way...

------
bmac27
The irony of "changing the world" is that the ones who've pretentiously
bastardized the phrase as a way of hobnobbing with the Web 2.0 elite never do.

The few that actually do change the world don't usually set out with that goal
in mind. Either that or they don't go out proclaiming they'll do it. They just
do it.

~~~
ecuzzillo
Do you have an anecdote on this topic?

~~~
bmac27
I think Dorsey & Twitter is a good example. He had the underlying concepts in
his head from the time he was 12 years old and long before Web 2.0. When he
was brought onto Odeo, the idea was to be manifested in the form of SMS
alerts. I find it hard to believe that he had what we know today as Twitter in
his mind at the outset. Nor do I think his intention was for the service to be
used by citizens in a fight against oppressive democracies or in other
scenarios which one could reasonably assume had a truly global impact.

Contrast that with the startups coming out of incubators boasting about how
they're going to change the world with their.....t-shirt recommendation engine
app. Or something of the sort.

And who knows? It might actually be a kick-ass product, have phenomenal
revenues & truly help people. But it's not going to change the world.

Maybe it's just my issue with the phrase but I think "changing the world" has
become one of those trite, overused Web 2.0 expressions that have become as
hollow as a dead tree trunk to early adopters & end users. They've simply
heard it too many times before and they know not every company is going to
change the world.

The other thing that's troublesome is that it's discouraging people from
building cool stuff because they think it's not "changing the world." I've
already seen questions on Quora from folks who think their ideas (or even
existing businesses) are invalid because they don't feel the company's going
to become the next Google or Apple; even though, as someone already mentioned,
Larry & Sergey were ready to sell at $1 million for the technology. That
doesn't sound to me like someone who wanted to change the world from the very
outset.

I don't know. Maybe it's just my issue with the phrase but I imagine there are
at least a few folks that feel the same way. Apologies for the tangent.

------
seagaia
1:00-1:15 or so. "Find information about you." Heh heh, well that part
certainly works now.

I think it's perfectly fine his view changed from '05 to now about the use of
Facebook.

