5 ms·

The Problem With Marc Andreessen

• lbo 14y ago
  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.
  • chrismealy 14y ago
    Netscape != Andreesen
  • raganwald 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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.
  • siavosh 14y ago
    Regarding Opsware, I think the author of the article is pointing out that a company's acquisition price does not necessarily equal its true value. In other words, the seller of a tulip at the peak of a market bubble hasn't created as much value as you'd think.
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• rollypolly 14y ago
  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.
  • smtf 14y ago
    I had similar thoughts while reading the article. If the market is rewarding people who are not creating long term value, where does that leave innovators that do?
  • dredmorbius 14y ago
    Yes, it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking
• stevenj 14y ago
  Marc.
• siavosh 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.
• waterlesscloud 14y ago
  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.
  • ardillamorris 14y ago
    From the point of view that public markets are accesible to everyone - the secondary market is like a grey market: there's limited information, likelihood of anonymity and weak controls. With that in mind, I would call it "shadowy". Also, I think making money on timing the market is not a bad thing. To each his own. However, timing the market does not create value. It is merely displacing value or what they call a zero-sum game. I don't think the article goes too far in displaying MA as someone playing that game. In fact, makes the point so valid that it's hard to argue that he has created some sort of permanent value. Other than netscape, the FB board seat is just a fancy chair...
    • ma2rten 14y ago
      Actually I think it is quite normal for almost any kind of transaction not to get broadcasting publicity. I fail to see how that is shadowy. Anyway, why would staring Netscape not be enough value already? After all he himself wrote the Mosic browser that became the basis for all of today's browser. I think very few people have produced more "value" in their lives. I also don't like the tone of voice of the article. It's pretty much a personal attack only based on the fact that he makes a lot of money.
      • cube13 14y ago
        >Anyway, why would staring Netscape not be enough value already? After all he himself wrote the Mosic browser that became the basis for all of today's browser. I think very few people have produced more "value" in their lives. No, he was a part of the team that wrote the Mosaic browser. Eric Bina was the other major contributor. Mosaic was not a solo project like the first version of Linux. It was a team effort.
• blader 14y ago
  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.
  • ReadEvalPost 14y ago
    What the hell has Felix Salmon ever done? Felix Salmon is a journalist. He provides value to the world by reporting or critiquing -- in this case, critiquing the notion that Andreessen and his business practices are worth venerating or emulating. That he has not built a successful start-up is entirely unrelated to that point, much in the same way the fact Roger Ebert isn't a director is unrelated to his critique of films.
    • andrewfelix 14y ago
      >Felix Salmon is a journalist. Exactly. Not being a successful VC does not preclude you from criticising a successful VC.
      • nullflux 14y ago
        However, Salmon's incentives aren't aligned the same and regardless of his desire to show a lack of bias to be a "good journalist", there is a point that he stands a lot to gain if his critique of Andreessen becomes popular. Sure, he makes good points, but I'd take this type of critique a lot more seriously if a successful VC said it. Journalists are good at writing and doing a job of disseminating information. Given their role, they will never be completely accurate when it comes to making predictions of an industry in which they are often on the periphery of "the trenches".
  • wslh 14y ago
    I agree more with Felix than with you. Probably many other people built the same "unsuccessful" companies but can't only sell those companies if they are well connected.
• ggchappell 14y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldWideWeb
  • smacktoward 14y ago
    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 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-browser/ http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/04/0422mosaic-web-br...
    • dredmorbius 14y ago
      The modifier you're looking for is "first graphical WWW browser".
      • smacktoward 14y ago
        Not really; that would include any WWW browser with a GUI interface (like the original WorldWideWeb on NeXTSTEP).
        • dredmorbius 14y ago
          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.
• srconstantin 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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 14y ago
        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.
  • mattmanser 14y ago
    Because there's the occasional hit to pay for all the ponzi schemes. So it ends up being not ponzi because it really does generate cash. I have no idea if Marc actually has done anything at all with his life after mosaic apart from make a lot of terrible companies that sold well. The article seems to imply he's a total fraud. But I'll tell you who has. Microsoft, Google, AOL, Yahoo, etc. They all made lots of money and they're the ones paying silly sums of money to buy companies that they then almost consciously let rot, fester and die. I think mainly so that no-one can accidentally get bigger than them and take them out. Imagine if someone bought facebook 5 years ago. It probably would be dead by now.
• carguy1983 14y ago
  Anyone know what the p in pmarca stands for?
  • siavosh 14y ago
    I believe it's 'private', it was his private blog at some point.
  • LiveTheDream 14y ago
    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".
• patmeckham 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
  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.
• andrewfelix 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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 14y ago
        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 14y ago
          Critical Analysis and badmouthing aren't the same thing. Plenty of publications get good interviews with polarising figures while critically analysing their achievements.
          • rhizome 14y ago
• aswanson 14y ago
  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 14y ago
  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?"