Too Much Suckage
whydoeseverythingsuck.com
whydoeseverythingsuck.com
The main effect of Linux is to keep the prices of its competitors low. For any given application, you will probably find a better alternative to it which is only slightly more expensive.
My point is that making something people will pay for is vastly different from what any of those articles he was referencing is talking about.
Honestly, the whole post kind of struck me as a retread dressed up to be linkbait. Which, ironically, is what he's complaining about in startups.
It not a new problem, thinking of new things is hard, trying to convince people to want new things is harder. I'm pretty sure there's a pg essay about it, it should be practically canonical my now.
Also, the iphone doesn't really have much to do with the "web"...
If you're product is so easy to copy that another company will be able to give customer the exact your product for free, then yes - lame startups are to blame. Gimp has been "giving Photoshop away" for years but it doesn't stop Adobe from charging $600 for it.
How can you blame customers for not willing to pay you for what you've made? Imagine General Motors blaming Americans for not buying enough Silverados in their quarterly earnings report.
Business models employed by most "Web 2.0" startups are old. They're nothing but electronic versions of magazines. There have always been subscription-based periodicals, 100% ad-supported publications and many more in between. People always paid for the good stuff.
The problem is: that there is "nothing to read", and of course there isn't, since most startups aren't solving the problem of "creating". Instead everybody is into sharing, discovering, aggregating.
Just imagine a news stand with hundreds of magazines that have short snippets of actual articles from another magazines, claiming that their "content" is pre-filtered to fit your preferences by thousands of editors.
Will you pay?
Again, don't compare non-web products to web based. It is vastly different.
Yes it is perfectly fine to blame the normal customer for what he wants and what he is willing to pay. I myself have very different tastes than the normal customer. At least faulting the customer makes more sense than blaming the startups that are just doing what makes the most money. The consumers can change their mind about what companies they will make successful but the companies cannot change what the customers desire.
No real exit is based around the "magazine business model".
The whole idea that you should blame anyone for a startup doing something that makes money is thoroughly pointless. There's nothing to blame anyone for.
If you start up a business and you make money, then, in general, you have achieved the goal of starting a business. Who cares if it's making vampire widgets on Facebook or a social network for shortstops? If you're making money you can laugh at critics all the way to the bank.
No they aren't. Flickr Pro, Quicken, Mac OSX and the toaster in my kitchen are all exactly the same: I saw them, liked them and paid money to get them.
Stop thinking that you're different. First, you aren't. Second, it's not healthy.
I don't understand why "web 2.0" entrepreneurs think they're different. I can imagine it may be hard for many to accept that what they do isn't worth a dime in consumers' eyes. Accept it and move on - build something with value, and do it better than the next guy.
People would not pay for toasters if you could download them for free. This is getting idiotic.
Indeed. You still don't get it.