Attacks On 'Frivolous' Startups, Sound Like Misguided Attacks On 'Frivolous' Blogs & Social Media

from the cat-bloggers-of-silicon-valley dept

We hear it all the time when it comes to various social media offerings. Blogs were dismissed early on by all important people who said they "don't care about what people wearing pajamas sitting in their basement have to say about their cats." Twitter was dismissed by people who "don't care what so-and-so ate for lunch." And on and on. But what's interesting is this same sort of attitude seems to also be playing out on a larger scale, in how people look at innovation. Investor Peter Thiel is apparently complaining that Silicon Valley companies aren't doing anything really important any more. But, I think, like the complaints about Blogging, Twitter and other social media efforts (some of which Thiel invested in), he's focused too much on all the fluff and ignoring the fact that plenty of serious things are going on. However, there's almost always been random silly startups that get lots of attention (and some of them later turn into being serious, important companies). Google, Amazon and eBay were all derided as being frivolous in their early years, but all turned into something much larger.

Along those lines, Dan Lyons has perhaps his most ridiculous column to date (and that's saying a lot), in that he sets up by complaining about the same "frivolous" innovation going on in Silicon Valley, and then uses Nathan Myhrvold of Intellectual Ventures as the counter-example of a company taking on the real hard problems. Uh, yeah, the real hard problems of hoarding patents, waiting for someone else to do the real work, and then shaking them down for money? Lyons, like so many others, seems to not recognize the difference between ideas and execution. What has Intellectual Ventures actually executed on. What product has it brought to market? Absolutely none. The only thing it's done to date is collect hundreds of millions of dollars from a few tech companies so that those companies can avoid getting sued, and can dig into IV's patent database to countersue those who sue them. Lyons quotes Myhrvold making the following statement:
"The old Silicon Valley was about solving really hard problems, making technical bets. But there's no real technical bet being made with Facebook or Zynga," says Nathan Myhrvold, the former chief technology officer at Microsoft who now runs an invention lab in Seattle. "Today almost everyone in the Valley will tell you there is too much 'me-tooism,' too much looking for a gold rush and not enough people who are looking to solve really hard problems."
Myhrvold is being misleading yet again. There's always been "me-tooism" in the Valley, and sometimes it works out, and often it doesn't. Microsoft, where Myhrvold worked for many years, was pretty damn famous for its brand of "me-tooism." And, oh yeah, it too could be dismissed in its early days for not being "about solving really hard problems." And, of course, there are plenty of tech companies out there that are working on solving hard problems, so cherry picking a few you don't like does not make for a representation of the entire industry.
"What bothers me is the zillions of wannabes who will follow along, and the expectation that every company ought to be focused on doing really short-term, easy things to achieve giant paydays. I think that's unrealistic, and it's not healthy," Myhrvold says.
So don't worry about the wannabe and followers. They've always been around Silicon Valley and the ecosystem tends to take care of them over time. Focus on building what you're building (which in Myhrvold's case, still appears to be nothing) and let the market take care of the rest. It always seems to do just fine.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 30th, 2010 @ 6:41pm

    http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_prototypes/all/1

    Almost everything I see today started as a hobby for someone, or was an accidental discovery.

    That zillion of people doing banal things are the fertilizer for the great ideas.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Pierre Wolff (profile), Oct 1st, 2010 @ 1:59am

    That article was a frivolous story wrapped in a Nathan Myrhvold puff piece ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 5:08am

    Peter Thiel shouldn't get his panties in a twist because the internet thing is just a fad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    staff, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 8:31am

    right of ownership

    "the difference between ideas and execution"

    Both are necessary. Without the idea, there can be no execution. Without strong property rights those ideas will remain secret and never be commercialized. No one would build a house or plan for it without the right of ownership.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Oct 1st, 2010 @ 8:53am

    Re: right of ownership

    Both are necessary. Without the idea, there can be no execution.

    Indeed. But ideas are plentiful. Execution is not.

    Without strong property rights those ideas will remain secret and never be commercialized.

    Too bad that all the evidence suggests the exact opposite. Why do you ignore the evidence?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Oct 1st, 2010 @ 12:17pm

    What SCO Wants, SCO Gets

    Day Lyons is the author of the ridiculous Forbes piece What SCO Wants, SCO Gets, where he parrots all of Darl McBride's talking points without any consideration of what SCO critics are saying.

    (SCO is the company that set out to destroy Linux in 2003 by claiming that it infringed on their copyrights.)

    Dan went on to publish additional inflammatory articles seemingly intended to outrage the open source community. Day coined the term "freetards" to refer to proponents of open source.

    Turns out SCO never could produce anything in court and the SCO critics were right on all points.

    Years later, Dan ate his crow when he published Snowed By SCO where he claims he was misled by SCO. Hey Dan, here's a clue for you. For free even. If you had done even the slightest investigation of the claims of SCO critics, you might not have been misled.

    So before you ever consider too seriously anything written by Dan Lyons, first consider the source.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This