Hacker News Reader

Comment by drwh0 | Hacker News Reader

If there's any truth to pg's claim that the paradigm is shifting and that talented people are increasingly likely to start their own thing than go work for a boss (and personally, I believe there is)

no there isn't. come back in five years, the top ten internet companies will control 95% of all traffic and 99% of all revenues. this market has almost zero friction...how is it that google has already sewn up over 80% of ad revenues on the web? where are all the mom-and-pop ad networks? they're on deaths door

by the same token anyone can build a PC...so what happened to the 10,000 little PC makers that used to be in every strip mall? today we have basically three pc makers....hp, dell, apple. so much for "low barrier to entry = high res"

View on HN

I don't get this argument. Assign the top ten companies as high a percentage of whatever as you like: it won't prevent people from seizing opportunity to create value at a higher rate than large organizations are able to do. The point is that the two barriers that largely prevented talented people from doing so in the past - cost of entry and cultural beliefs - don't hold sway anymore.

The fact that some markets have matured and been commoditized hardly implies that there is no new value to be created.

The problem is, "low cost of entry" is just another way of saying "commoditization". Your argument depends on the assumption that because it's cheaper to produce a website than (say) a motherboard, it's therefore going to be easier to create a valuable website. That's wrong.

Ultimately, there's no strategic advantage to be gained by entering an industry where the barrier to entry is so low that everyone can do it. When you're competitor N+1 in a market like that, your only hope is to compete on efficiency (i.e. the Dell model), or novelty (i.e. the Apple model). Otherwise, you're just a guy in a strip mall, selling beige boxes; you might make a living from it, but you're not going to get rich.

In short, don't think of the PC industry -- think of the teriyaki restaurant industry. It's cheap to open a teriyaki joint, and anyone can do it, but unless you're going to serve gourmet teriyaki, or find a way to produce it for less (/shudder/), it's not the place that you want to be as an aspiring entrepreneur.

Gee, after reading some of your comments, I almost feel like giving up on and going off to live in the woods.

The woods are peaceful, and have a way of changing your perspective. I recommend them.

(Seriously: I am not a pessimist, but compared to some of the wild-eyed optimism that gets thrown around here, I may sometimes seem like one. My world view is that, given a choice, you should live life in a way that maximizes health, happiness and satisfaction, not money. Start a company because you want to work for yourself, not because you want to get rich -- because you probably won't.

If your whole goal when starting a project is to achieve fame and fortune, you will go through life in an almost perpetual state of disappointment. If, instead, you make choices that allow you to live a good life now, you'll be happier by definition.)

You guys are comparing a single saturated market to the economy as a whole. That's a category error. New markets are always emerging.

No I'm not -- my comments are limited to saturated markets.

Obviously, one of the ways to get rich is to create a new market and exploit it. But that's probably not as easy as building the better Teriyaki restaurant, judging by how rarely lucrative new markets emerge.

Low cost of entry means anyone can try any number of ideas with minimal investment. Commoditization means all of those ideas will be the same, thereby lowering the value of the idea.

They are not the same thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com