Most active commenters
  • kulahan(3)

←back to thread

388 points pseudolus | 41 comments | | HN request time: 2.416s | source | bottom
Show context
Bukhmanizer ◴[] No.43485838[source]
I’m surprised not many people talk about this, but a big reason corporations are able to do layoffs is just that they’re doing less. At my work we used to have thousands of ideas of small improvements to make things better for our users. Now we have one: AI. It’s not that we’re using AI to make all these small improvements, or even planning on it. We’re just… not doing them. And I don’t think my experience is very unique.
replies(21): >>43486104 #>>43486264 #>>43486456 #>>43487649 #>>43487671 #>>43488414 #>>43488436 #>>43488988 #>>43489201 #>>43489228 #>>43489488 #>>43489997 #>>43490451 #>>43490843 #>>43491273 #>>43491336 #>>43491568 #>>43491660 #>>43492193 #>>43492499 #>>43493656 #
1. prisenco ◴[] No.43487649[source]
The AI takeover of the startup space makes me feel a bit crazy because there are still thousands of world-changing app ideas that have zero to do with AI but nobody's funding or building them.

We can't possibly have run out of consumer app ideas in a decade or two, right?

replies(5): >>43487720 #>>43487813 #>>43488156 #>>43488730 #>>43488981 #
2. morkalork ◴[] No.43487720[source]
It feels like we ran out in the first decade since the iPhone (2007-2017) and have been running on fumes since. Can you name some world changing consumer app or company outside of AI fluff that came to be in that post 2017 to end of 2022 period when chatgpt was released?
replies(5): >>43487923 #>>43488038 #>>43488113 #>>43488422 #>>43488518 #
3. Macha ◴[] No.43487813[source]
Honestly even before it was AI, it felt like everything was blockchain or "Uber for X". The majority of startups have been trend chasing for a while.
replies(1): >>43488095 #
4. AbstractH24 ◴[] No.43487923[source]
Slack, Zoom, TikTok

And those are just off the top of my head

replies(2): >>43487987 #>>43488035 #
5. robenkleene ◴[] No.43487987{3}[source]
Those all predate 2017:

- Slack: 2013

- Zoom: 2011

- TikTok: 2016

Based on "Initial Release" on Wikipedia.

6. singpolyma3 ◴[] No.43488035{3}[source]
Neither slack nor zoom did anything new or interesting. Just a clone of stable tech that worked out in marketing
replies(2): >>43488108 #>>43488268 #
7. KoolKat23 ◴[] No.43488038[source]
Sad to say: Tiktok, Only Fans, Discord
replies(2): >>43488134 #>>43488253 #
8. baby_souffle ◴[] No.43488095[source]
To a broader extent isn't this kind of the history of silicon valley ever since the dot com bubble?

For every small startup trying to build innovative robotics to solve a healthcare or agriculture problem, there's 10 startups getting 100x funding because they figured out how to put jpegs on the blockchain and the last guys that figured out how to do that had a nice exit...

I forgot what the economists call this but it's the characterization of housing market. The value of your current house is determined by the last few local sales and little else. All of the startups using the current in Vogue technology feel like that...

replies(1): >>43488377 #
9. baby_souffle ◴[] No.43488108{4}[source]
Maybe they didn't have innovative functionality initially but the user experience was certainly better.

Microsoft fumbled Skype and nobody was putting together convenient apis on top of IRC...

replies(1): >>43488701 #
10. quantified ◴[] No.43488113[source]
Tiktok was released in its current form in 2017, I believe. Is that before the period you're asking about?
11. morkalork ◴[] No.43488134{3}[source]
According to Wikipedia, Discord is 2015, Only Fans and TikTok are 2016.

I'm as surprised as you are, I'd like to be proven wrong here!

12. sho_hn ◴[] No.43488156[source]
Honestly, as a guy working in open source at the time, the massive brain drain when crypto came along and young people wanted to get rich instead of solving problems was increadibly dispiriting and frustrating. Seen in comparison, the AI stuff has a much bigger application space, is building tools, and is far less frustrating to me.
replies(1): >>43489071 #
13. forgetfreeman ◴[] No.43488253{3}[source]
But these are all marketing wins. The underlying technology (let people post shit and talk to one another) had been stable for like a decade before they came along.
replies(2): >>43488462 #>>43488565 #
14. zombiwoof ◴[] No.43488268{4}[source]
Slack was skype
replies(1): >>43512883 #
15. bradlys ◴[] No.43488377{3}[source]
This is exactly how Silicon Valley works because this is how investors work. Investors aren’t really looking for true innovation - they’re looking for an idea that will let the next sucker take the hit. When one company is doing very well, clearly there’s some suckers out there buying the stock. Therefore, if we have a stock that is similar then maybe we can also get suckers to buy the stock.

That’s all it is. That’s part of why Silicon Valley is so clout chasing and cargo culty. It’s entirely due to investor pressure to get immediate returns. Immediate returns mean you have to follow whatever the current hype is.

Is it IoT, crypto, nft, Uber for X, self driving, etc. etc.? That’s what you do. You follow whatever the hype is and bail after you get your desired return.

There’s no desire for a sustainable business. There’s a desire for other investors to be a sucker that holds the bag at the end.

replies(1): >>43488952 #
16. pedalpete ◴[] No.43488422[source]
I think this is the cycle. Take a look at the S curve, things move in jumps with leveling out/adaption periods in between.
17. daedrdev ◴[] No.43488462{4}[source]
No, they are product development wins. Discord is far more popular than alternatives because they provide a far superior product that also has many normal features that their competition somehow fails on, like voice chat, video chat, steaming, images and videos in chat that don't disappear, spam protection and good moderator tools, etc.
replies(1): >>43512903 #
18. Spooky23 ◴[] No.43488518[source]
There’s a lot of B2B stuff.

How much easier is it to manage and operate technology in 2025 than it was in 2005 or 2015? I have three core tech teams with 12-18 people. I’d need 500+ to do what I do today in 2005, assuming the tech could do it.

Breakthrough B2C products don’t appear annually. But everything is better. Apple Maps can estimate my travel time for a 300 mile drive with 5 minutes. I bought a last minute flight to Rome last summer knowing nothing about Rome or speaking any Italian and I did fine, thanks to iPhone and the mobile app ecosystem.

19. prisenco ◴[] No.43488565{4}[source]
| The underlying technology ... had been stable

That's my point. There are still creative ways we can use or improve stable technology to build new consumer applications.

I'm not seeing much creativity lately.

replies(1): >>43488944 #
20. entropicdrifter ◴[] No.43488701{5}[source]
Right, so iterations that ate up the old-school competition, not revolutions
replies(1): >>43490464 #
21. bamboozled ◴[] No.43488730[source]
I wonder...what sort of world changing apps do you think we're expecting to see?

I think about it quite often and there is a LOT of apps out there, and really, humans don't need that much to be happy.

replies(2): >>43488822 #>>43489714 #
22. UncleOxidant ◴[] No.43488822[source]
And human attention is a limited resource that just might be tapped out at this point.
23. forgetfreeman ◴[] No.43488944{5}[source]
No argument there. Compared to Xerox-Parc's heyday the Bay Area has felt like a case study in cargo cults since before the dotcom implosion.
24. maccard ◴[] No.43488952{4}[source]
> You follow whatever the hype is and bail after you get your desired return.

> There’s a desire for other investors to be a sucker that holds the bag at the end.

I agree with everything you said except for these two sentences. If you take VC funding to build a sustainable business frankly you’re doomed from the get go. That’s not what a VC wants and it won’t get you funded. There are other routes to that.

What VCs want is if 99 of those startups fail, to be holding the Airbnb, uber, Anthropic at the end. Because holding that from the beginning will make you more money than any other option.

replies(1): >>43489199 #
25. pram ◴[] No.43488981[source]
How quickly we forgot the “Web 3” revolution!
replies(1): >>43489425 #
26. nicbou ◴[] No.43489071[source]
Not only get rich, but do so in the least productive, most destructive way imaginable.
replies(1): >>43489386 #
27. bradlys ◴[] No.43489199{5}[source]
The stock market is mostly based on the greater fool theory. You can’t really escape that.

Most VCs doing 99 investments for the 1 big are akin to YC. They’re not doing series C for $100m and expecting 99 of those to fail. They’re expecting to get a return somewhat shortly back.

Holding the stock isn’t helpful for a VC unless they’re going to be using some financial mechanism for leverage - which means they’ve given it up for the other institution who now essentially owns it. A lot of these stocks aren’t giving you meaningful dividends. You have to sell or give up some form of control on them to be a successful VC. How else would you continue to invest?

28. boringg ◴[] No.43489386{3}[source]
Totally vapid class of people working in there minus a few notables.
29. jongjong ◴[] No.43489425[source]
Well it was a scam. The ultimate scam. Literally, they only supported scams and suppressed projects with real potential. I say that as someone who worked in the space and saw it turn into a scam... Started back in 2017.
replies(2): >>43490864 #>>43512857 #
30. Bukhmanizer ◴[] No.43489714[source]
> there is a LOT of apps out there, and really, humans don't need that much to be happy.

There’s more music out there than there’s ever been. More tv shows and movies than I could possibly watch, but I still find new things to watch and listen to.

But tech? Maybe other than my Robot vacuum, I don’t think there’s anything in the last 5 years I’ve seen that I’ve felt is going to make my life easier or better. Which seems odd because the pace that technology seems to be improving only seems to be accelerating. We can do more than we ever could before, but it feels like the appetite to improve things is no longer there.

replies(2): >>43491341 #>>43498947 #
31. brookst ◴[] No.43490464{6}[source]
What was the last major tech company that was a revolution and not mere iteration?
replies(1): >>43491567 #
32. __MatrixMan__ ◴[] No.43490864{3}[source]
Ultimate, you say? I think the future for scams is looking bright. Scams will one day look back at web 3 and reminisce about their quaint beginnings.
replies(1): >>43510287 #
33. YetAnotherNick ◴[] No.43491341{3}[source]
It takes lot more than 5 years for people to recognize the need and the product to deliver. It took desktops and smartphones and internet decades before it got out of "I don't need it" zone. Now you need it. Even robot vacuum was there for decades.
34. samrus ◴[] No.43491567{7}[source]
Maybe Netflix?
replies(1): >>43493378 #
35. brookst ◴[] No.43493378{8}[source]
That’s a good one. Which suggests Amazon as well; similar revolution in distribution and scale.

But there were companies shipping DVDs before Netflix, and also companies streaming movies online before them. So really a marketing / operations / distribution revolution.

replies(1): >>43539300 #
36. bamboozled ◴[] No.43498947{3}[source]
Driver assist technology has been a pretty amazing improvement, but it's also getting "old".
37. jongjong ◴[] No.43510287{4}[source]
Ah yes I exaggerated there. The global debt-fueled fiat monetary ponzi is the ultimate scam, crypto just plays a supporting role in giving people false hope that you can fix corruption with corruption.
38. kulahan ◴[] No.43512857{3}[source]
So who is this specter that somehow and for some reason killed off all useful projects and made sure there was no way to even exploit it for unscrupulous profit?
39. kulahan ◴[] No.43512883{5}[source]
Absolutely not.

Skype figured out how to build an integrated login experience. Every morning using slack I keep having to remind myself it’s not early FOSS!

40. kulahan ◴[] No.43512903{5}[source]
It’s an incredibly buggy experience with a user interface that fails many basic design cues (like not hiding things until you mouse over, not making the friends list icon inexplicably identical to a server icon and also the add server icon, etc.)

It’s popular because they figured out and unbelievably low-friction method to get users into the ecosystem. Being able to do everything online without installing anything was huge at the time. You had an account in like 2 clicks. THAT was a thing of beauty.

41. entropicdrifter ◴[] No.43539300{9}[source]
Netflix and Amazon were the first to effectively scale their revolutions up to mainstream accessibility that made them clearly superior to the competition. You could say they brought already-simmering revolutions to boil.

Google was initially revolutionary just because their search engine actually worked incredibly well back before people started trying to game their rankings