Here's Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years | Hacker News Reader

Here's Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years

forbes.com

80 pointssnambi74 comments

They mentioned amazon as kinda fading into the background as a web 1.0 company not even being able to capitalize on social, but they missed they part where amazon is one of the biggest cloud companies out there, single handedly powering, what, 1% of the internet now all by themselves? They are crazy huge in infrastructure and I can't see them going anywhere anytime soon

I was also surprised by that point re:social [Quote]: Why has Amazon done so little in social?

What does capitalizing, or doing well with social even _mean_? I think Amazon has done quite well in social, and here's why: If I'm looking to gauge the quality of a product, I'll probably look it up on Amazon and read the customer reviews.

The value of that social aspect (i.e. getting the opinions of fellow people) of Amazon is much higher than any amount of likes, re-tweets, or an imaginary Amazon+ social network thingie.

Social is only valuable to a business if you can leverage it in some way. And looking at Amazon's review system, I would say that they have done quite well in social.

Agreed but I also think that getting input from those you know or know of in addition to total stranger review is stronger. The more of people you trust reviewing something, the more you're more inclined to trust those reviews. I think having both systems in place is better. BTW, this comment is separate from the article's argument of social.

"Fading into the background" is exactly what Amazon wants, I think. That is to say, people are no longer especially excited about them because they are everywhere, in everything, and we just take them for granted like Safeway.

I don't think they want to be like Safeway. Safeway is not exactly in good shape right now. They are in quite a fight with their competitors and the rough economy has taken quite a heavy toll on them.

Ok, perhaps Safeway isn't the best example, but hopefully my point remains clear.

Remember, this is Forbes.

I don't get Forbes.com. I know "Forbes" from their "rich people" list and my understanding was they are a US based print magazine. But the website is nothing like the website of a magazine! It looks like a giant blob of blog posts and fluff opinion pieces of myriads of different authors ("contributors").

The same magazine that name übersatanic corp Monsanto 2009's company of the year.

I read this and thought the exact same thing. I'd be willing to bet the author has absolutely no idea about the size of Amazons web infrastructure business.

Even ignoring their Web infrastructure business, Amazon is the 800 pound gorilla of e-commerce. It's true that their profit margins are quite low but that's part of being a distributor, and helps them fend off competitors as they keep growing.

http://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=bvg&chs=323x200...

Amazon's tablet now holds > 50% of the Android tablet market, which makes them a major mobile player too. The article was written around a headline, instead of around facts, and actual statistics and trends.

You know what might disappear in the next 5 years? Forbes.

When I consider the way their articles seem to consist mainly of link bait without substance, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them disappear within that timeframe. I could swear I remember a time when folks would point to Forbes as a good publication, but I'm not so sure now. Probably a symptom of focusing on ad revenue rather than editorial quality and journalistic integrity.

Yeah, the amount of linkbait that comes out of there makes me feel like they have intentionally targeted HN. After clicking on a forbes link, only to discover it was literally Quora wrapped in an iframe, I stopped clicking. I now just check to comments to see if any interesting discussion actually occurred.

I watched Jimmy Kimmel's routine at the 2012 White House Correspondents' Dinner this morning, and he had a great relevant line:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=D...

"What's black and white and re[a]d all over? Nothing anymore"

The best part of the line was the audience reaction. He obviously hit a very sore spot.

IIRC, that was the only line in the 20-minute routing that drew boos/groans.

So eloquently yet so powerful

"might" or "will"? From this fluff piece, I am leaning towards "will"

I was also thinking about the irony of having Forbes, a dinosaur of the old press, talking about the impossibility of adapting to new paradigms.

At least journalism 1.0 (telling something noteworthy and meaningful) will be extinct.

The sad part is that this isn't Journalism 1.0. Journalism 1.0 was pennysheets. Remember those?

Facebook, probably, but I doubt Google. They are no Apple when it comes to building new business models and money-making products, but I don't see anything that could kill Google in the next 5 years.

Facebook on the other hand - I'm noticing a (slow) trend of people getting bored with it. I don't think people are bored with Google searches. Plus, as a company Facebook is much more vulnerable - a lot less money, a one-hit product with nothing else outside the social network to show for themselves. Yes, both use advertising, but that's a business model, not a product/service. It's like arguing Apple only makes money from selling hardware. Google has multiple products/services that use advertising. Facebook has one.

I actually think the opposite. Google still relies very heavily on search related revenue and with more and more people choosing apps over the web, plus with the advancement of things like Siri the importance of Google for search could be vastly reduced.

Facebook has massive growth potential. Smartphone usage is continuing to increase and people are using Facebook on smartphones to communicate (free text messaging essentially). Also with their purchase of instagram photo sharing on Facebook will continue to increase further.

Personally I think both will still be around in 5 years (although they will probably look very different) but I think Google carries the most risk.

You do understand "things like Siri" needs search to function; and not only google is aware of it's importance, but they built a competitor much before it launched?

They need search to some extent but they don't need Google. Siri tries to provide answers so it uses Wolfram Alpha, Yelp etc. Previously I had to google a question and wade through blue links. Now, I ask Siri and it gives me the answer direct from a knowledgable source. No Google.

"they built a competitor"

I've never used it but I thought that the Android equivalent of Siri was just voice recognition/dictation?

What? How do "apps" answer "search"? (What do you think powers Siri, and keep in mind that a Google competitor to Siri is expected within 2012).

Further, if "free texting" and "Instagram" are what is going to keep Facebook afloat... well I hope for their sake, you're wrong. I can tell you from the app and mobile web experience alone, no one I know has ever used Facebook messaging as a replacement for SMS. Plus there are a dozen dedicated services that fill that role better (Google Voice included no less).

Apps answer search in several ways. If I want information ona restaurant I don't google it - I launch the Yelp app. Instead of using Gmail (where they display ads to me) I use a native app (Sparrow) which Google makes no revenue from afaik. I have specific apps that provide news to me rather than using search to find stories. Instead of comparison pricing on Google Shopping I will use the Amazon and eBay apps.

Nearly everyone I know uses Facebook Messaging instead of texting. They still use texting but too but more and more and relying on Facebook Messaging (I think this is because Facebook has a dedicated iOS messaging app which is much better than the full Facebook app). Their may be dedicated services that fill the role better but 'everyone' is on Facebook (And Google Voice is US only).

I probably didn't explain the Instagram thing properly. Facebook is become (maybe it already is) the photo sharing platform of choice. You can already share privately with friends & family very easily (from where ever you are thanks to smartphones). Now that they own Instagram they also have a great system for allowing people to share photos publicly too. This will help people stay on Facebook - if they don't they lose access to thousands of photos they have uploaded and the many more they are tagged in.

Although sometimes I still use Google to search Amazon. There are some corner cases that Google is better at than Amazon's search tool.

I agree. Plus I don't trust (unlike some other commenters) reviews on Amazon, so I Google for several reviews and trust the consensus of all sources. Google search is very much alive.

I think Google search will die instantly if anyone ever gets a vastly superior search product. I used to use Yahoo! in 75% of my searches mixed with others on the 25%, then along came Google and I found I could get my answers faster on 99.9% of my searches. If Yelp+Siri+Wolfram+whatever turns out to be a much better way, then goodbye Google. But I think Google is really good at building technologies, they have a lot of smart people, and they won't let someone get away with supplanting their search engine without giving it serious competition, which Yahoo! was unable to do. Google is trying to take over Yelp, they are competing with Siri, they even try to compete with Facebook. Maybe eventually they'll die, but they aren't letting anyone get the huge jump on them that they got on Yahoo!.

Google does lack a sufficient "moat". If someone were to have a demonstrably better take on finding answers to what people are looking for on the Internet (be it traditional search, or something else), Google might not be able to pivot quickly enough. Competition is only a URL away so switching costs are low for end users. Google's real customers (advertisers) will follow quickly if users leave.

Being a URL away is a pretty big thing. Their moat includes being the default search engine for Chrome and Android devices. They've also made deals with everyone except Microsoft to be the default search engine on every browser/platform/device you can imagine.

They do not have deals with everyone except Microsoft to be the default search engine. Last I checked, Opera does not default to Google.

Personally I've moved away almost entirely from Google searches, and have gone over to DuckDuckGo.

Assuming that the article is dead-on about everything (which it certainly isn't), Google won't be MySpace-dead. The interesting thing about Google is that they've gone way beyond mere business models. Google is making AR glasses. Google is making autonomous cars. Google is creating new programming languages. These aren't bottom line things; these are "enhance the world" things.

If Google "disappears", they'll turn into an IBM or a Microsoft. Not even Amazon is quite at that level. And Facebook is absolutely not at that level. Maybe one day, but not yet. Being a Zuckerberg hater, I don't expect it to ever happen.

Thoughts before reading the article: "Hah! Notta chance."

Thoughts after reading the article: "Hah! Notta chance."

Perhaps a bit of "Hmm, that's pretty interesting coming from a dead tree magazine.." /s

Yahoo, Myspace, Further back AltaVista, AOL. Tech and every non-subsidized "too big to fail" industry is littered with dead or no longer relevant "notta chances".

And you should really work on not letting your biases against the messenger influence your opinion of the message.

If you notice in my comment, I said that I had read the article in an attempt to disabuse myself of any preconceived notions.

The article failed to do that. In short, I don't see either of those two companies failing barring some horrendous unexpected event.

As for the messenger, I just find it kind of funny (in a sad way) that one of the last bastions of a dying industry is predicting the imminent death of one that's alive and kicking.. more so one that has an issue with quality control and FUD-filled headlines.

It's like the buggy whip manufacturers saying these newfangled steam buggies will never go anywhere.

"We will never have Web 3.0, because the Web’s dead."

I think that sums up this article.

And that's coming from a publication that doesn't quite realize print is dead.

I stopped reading at that point. Pointless link-bait.

I just ignored this line. It seems unsubstantiated at best. It's probably there just for some sloppy sensational journalism without any thought for accuracy.

The rest of the article was mildly interesting even if they are Forbes and even if they are wrong that Google will completely disappear. I don't think Google will. But I still think it's interesting to watch history unfold as we see the evolution of the internet and all related technologies, so I like to hear people's opinions on it. Thus I kept reading.

that was amusing in some sense. they are predicting for Web but can't clearly look at their print media...

I don't know what revisionist history people lived in where they actually thought MySpace was a good idea with staying power and that News Corp's purchase was a smart bet. I remember distinctly how bad MySpace was and how ripe it was for disruption by a better alternative. People didn't use MySpace because it was good. People used it because everyone was currently on there. I also distinctly remember that News Corp bought MySpace right when all my friends were moving to Facebook. Anecdotally, no one I knew talked about MySpace positively and couldn't wait to switch to Facebook. No more ugly profile pages with animated GIFs and obnoxious music? No more slow unreliable website that seemed to be down all the time? No more ads? No more awkward user experience? Didn't take a PhD to see where the market was heading.

Which is why I'm stupefied that people nowadays continue to use MySpace as an example of "it could happen to you" bogeyman story for startups. It was destined to fail or be replaced. There is no lesson there except don't make a product that sucks and hope that people don't notice. They noticed. They found Facebook.

I love that he ends his tirade on the impending irrelevance of current internet companies with [Long YHOO.] I think the major flaw in Mr. Jackson’s line of thought is that Web 1.0, Web 2.0, mobile tech companies and whatever comes next are mutually exclusive of one another. When we talk about the stalwart companies of the Web 1.0’s, Web 2.0’s, etc. we’re talking about very different companies which fulfill different types of needs. We see that they’re not mutually exclusive but rather that they begin to form an intricate symbiotic web in which each player has an important role. Each new ‘phase’ and the companies which fill them are only niches which were previously empty (of which there may be an unknown number.)

I would argue that risks come from companies which through ingenuity can deliver a better option to an existing one (search, social, etc.) And while mobile seems to be growing force, I see it as a complement rather than a competitor to the web; certainly not one that will render the ‘Web dead.’

While mobile apps can certainly provide a better user experience for _some_ tasks, people often seem to forget that everyone in offices across the world still sit at desks and use a desktop pcs (or a decent sized laptop).

This isn't going to change. I can't work on an iPad or on my phone. While we all have two arms and two legs people will be working at desks and while people work at desks they will also occasionally browse social sites at their desks.

Mobile is big, but it's not ever going to completely replace web applications designed to be viewed at desks. We haven't even begun to see the start cloud based software, this is all on top of the fact that a huge percentage of the worlds population isn't even on the internet yet.

The web is changing, as ever, but outrageous claims like this are either a product of ignorance or shameless marketing.

This reasoning sounds a little lacking, but it's probably a disconnect from my understanding of "mobile" and "cloud" vs. the commenter's intended meaning. Clearly we need different form factors. We have smart phone size and tablet size. We definitely need workstation size. But I see mobile as a natural part of the evolution to the cloud. If data and apps can live in the cloud, then we're not tied to a machine at a desk. We can carry devices with us. And then when we get to a desk, we can keep doing what we've been doing, just on the larger machine. That's what cloud computing keeps talking about. But mobile computing is a piece in the cloud puzzle. Who cares about keeping data in sync between all your computers if you only have one desktop machine? I only care if I have a machines for each form factor and/or location in which I may want to do work.

Also, one possible technological scenario is that our smartphone acts as our central profile repository and when we get to a desktop machine the smartphone talks to it to connect to data, apps, and log you in. In that way the desktop becomes a seamless part of the mobile experience, providing the larger form factor as needed.

So you can actually implement this as all mobile and no cloud, or all cloud and no mobile, but the two are rather synergistic when combined, since mobile devices talk to the cloud and download software from the cloud. Whether the desktop gets my user data from a phone or the ethernet port doesn't matter, but I suspect it could very well do both, using the phone to handle recognizing it's me and logging me in, then using the internet connection to download my desktop apps and larger data. Dropbox can sync data between devices on the same LAN or the internet as needed, so we can do the same for desktop-phone synchronization too.

>We think of Google and Facebook as Web gorillas. They’ll be around forever.

Who thinks that? Especially about Facebook.

I think the idea that something like Siri will end Google is silly. Siri is just an input-output platform for a search. I think the more likely outcome is that the best search engine will power the best Siri-like app. There's no reason why Google would miss out on being that search engine.

It is also worth noting that Google dominates mobile search even more than it does traditional search.

It interrupts their (extremely powerful) brand, though. Right now, the word "google" literally means search to millions of people. If that switches to "let me siri that for you" it opens the door for entrants who today don't even have a chance. If siri can intelligently choose among multiple specialized search services, even more so.

Google really does need a way for figuring out the context of my question, so that it can do the specialization part. If they had a better social presence, then they could recognize my interests and habits as part of that context. So knowing I'm a programmer, when I type in "node" they could assume Node.js.

Some context from the question: If they can tell I'm talking about restaurants they can show me just restaurants. If I type in the name of a park, I don't want real estate and insurance companies with coincidentally the same name. Maybe asking a question in a full sentence like you do with Siri gives better context clues? Or maybe Siri just likes to assume a small set of tasks (calendar, looking for a business, making a task) and so is good at guessing those contexts but would be bad at other things. I can't really say much about Siri because I have an iPhone 4 and not a 4S. Oh well.

Google does do a bit of context guessing, like using Geo IP to guess my location, so a business or restaurant name comes up with local businesses.

"Google has done so little in social". What? Google has the leading smartphone OS and Android app store is growing by the hour...

I presume you mean mobile, not social there?

That's like saying Boeing will disappear because they did not invest in Zynga.

I'm yet to read the article but before that, let me award this the best link bait headline award -- off to scratch the itch

Typical Forbes link bait:

- Web is dead

- Amazon is not social

- Google the same as Facebook and obsolete ...

This is HN. Please stop posting and up voting this stuff, thanks.

I think the author is unaware that Amazon is powering a good chunk of internet businessed.

"The tech world" started in 1994?

Here's Why Forbes Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years.

Because we will never have Forbes 2.0

Because I think it will.

LOL

Ah I doubt that will happen.

  We will never have Web 3.0, because the Web’s dead.

Yawn. The person writing this is clearly clueless. The web is not going die. Anyone who says things like this is clearly an iPhone junkie and not really paying attention to the larger picture, and the fact that web apps are quickly catching up to iPhone app experiences, and are quickly going to overtake them. Native mobile apps are a short term fad. They're toast in the long run, because they go against the natural order of things -- network-based software is the future regardless of how cool a silly game you just downloaded is. Data is moving to the cloud, therefore software will move the cloud (not your mobile device), and nothing can change this trend... not even Apple.

  >  web apps are quickly catching up to iPhone app
  > experiences

They are not.

  > and are quickly going to overtake them.

They are not.

  > Native mobile apps are a short term fad.

They are not.

  > network-based software is the future

True. Have you noticed, how many native apps get their data from network.

  > Data is moving to the cloud,

True.

  > therefore software will
  > move the cloud (not your mobile device), and nothing can 
  > change this trend... not even Apple.

Have you heard of iCloud? Apple is already there. You are just confusing networked apps, data in the cloud and web apps. Native apps can have all that and still offer superior user experience. They will always have that advantage—no matter how fast the browsers get they will still be a middle man.

It's all about software delivery. Native apps, whether they be desktop or mobile based, will always pale in comparison to the simple act of clicking on a link, and immediately running the software - no downloads, no install, no headaches. Mobile natives apps can never provide this level of pain-free software experience. This is especially true if every app that can exist in the future needs to be moderated by a central authority (Apple). Mobile apps are not the future, it is the past, in new clothing.

Mobile apps are essentially a re-invention of the CD-ROM software era, in a new slick iPhone interface. Millions of people constantly re-downloading and upgrading the same software millions of times again and again. It's basically Windows freeware/shareware all over again. Some of these apps might have connection to a website, but it's just tacked onto an ancient software paradigm. Whereas when you starting building a web-based app, you already developing for that new hyper-networked paradigm.

In "the future", your web browser becomes the desktop, or the mobile UI, and the internet is the software. I promise you, in the long term, it does not matter how successful Apple, and previously Microsoft, are at deceiving you of this future. It will happen. And it is happening. Everywhere right now, there are millions and millions of developers building HTML5 apps, and every improvement to today's browsers is building our future software paradigm -- and it will not be controlled by Apple or Google.

For a web app to provide the same functionality as a native mobile app the same content must be downloaded. A mobile app downloads compiled executable and all assets in a bundle upfront, then it's permanently stored. A web app downloads UI structure (HTML,CSS) and minimal code (JS) first, appears to instantly be working, then downloads the rest (media assets like images and movies, the rest of the code, etc) in the background. In the end, the same amount of stuff has been downloaded. But web apps have the instant usability feel to them.

Web apps are improving such that they will be able to match the same experience and speed of native apps. JS engines run faster, WebGL allows 3D games, caching of files allows faster starting times. Maybe they'll get close to native speed, unlikely to match it due to middle man (browser, plus overhead of compiling JS vs pre-compiled Obj-C). But you still have re-downloading when the cache clears something out (or else you copy more mobile app features by letting the user declare what stays in the cache permanently). Mobile apps are re-downloaded once per update. Web apps will be re-downloaded more often than that even with good caching (maybe, I guess you could cache infinitely until you run out of space, so with sufficient space it's equivalent). So while web apps are playing catchup quite well, mobile apps still have advantages.

Payment models are different generally, but the models would work fine regardless of the web app vs. mobile difference. Web apps tend to be subscription based, mobile apps tend to be buy once with infinite free upgrades, or using some newer experimental model like "freemium". But you could make a buy-once web app or a subscription mobile app, and IIRC people already have.

So, the technologies are converging, and at the end of the day you still have to get the software from the developer to the user.

JS+WebGL+CSS+HTML+localstorage+... vs. Obj-C+Cocoa, that's just format war. Open web+browsers vs. curated Apple App Store + iOS vs. un-curated Google App Store + Android, that's platform war. Someone will win. But people will be using software on their mobile devices, regardless of how and where they get it or what's under the hood. Mobile is next, and the interconnectivity of the web will be working with it, and social will be working with it, and whatever else comes in the future will also add and change things of course.

Personally I think you and wavephorm are going to be getting a very nasty shock in the next 2 or 3 years.

Firstly a browser based application is always going to suck because it's based in a browser. Reflect on that, it's an application running on an OS inside an OS. It doesn't matter how fast it gets, it's a subset of a subset of controls.

Secondly, and this I'm not so confident about, but still believe in. Browsers have sucked at apps for the last 10 years and are going to suck for another 10 years because the HTML standards committees move so slooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. That's why Flash dominated and why native apps are going to dominate. HTML finally has moved to take on Flash just as Native Apps killed flash. They're a whole generation behind!

And the third reason? It's all based on javascript. It is practically impossible at the moment for normal programmers to write medium complexity javascript. ECMA 5 has been released with a whimper instead of a bang. It's pathetic. So anything written as a web app will be inferior to the much more manageable programming languages on the native apps, even though it's [cry] Obj-C and Java. Javascript is an order of magnitude worse for complex apps than those two.

Finally, the growing number of OSes. It ultimately means a growing variance in the quality, speed and modernness of HTML implementations and support, you're always going to get an edge going native on every OS. Previously we had Windows. Then Windows and a little Mac. Then Windows, Mac & iOS. Then Windows, Mac, iOS, Android. Then Windows XP, Windows Vista+, Mac, iOS, Android 2, ICS, Kindle Fire, etc. The OS market is fragmenting.

Very good points about why web apps have quality issues.

Some of those issues are not necessarily inherent limitations of the technology. We don't have to use Javascript, that's just what the standard currently is. Flash was a possible answer, as is Silverlight, in delivering apps over the web through a browser. Flash Air (check me on that) was a way to run a Flash app in what looked like a native format. Chrome 1.0 had a mode that hides all browser controls in an attempt to mimic the form of a native app. Java was restrictive in allowed functionality, but people added access to the Windows task bar, to OpenGL, to all kinds of things via JNI. We can add all those extra features to a browser via plugins. So it's technically possible to do all the same things from a browser. It's just a lot harder to get all the people in the middle to agree on reasonable technologies and then implement them the same way.

The large amount of OSs argument is interesting. On the one hand, that means there will be a large amount of mobile OSs for which a native app must be developed. That's a challenge to developers in itself. On the other hand, varying compliance with standards and various performance in a browser is another challenge to developers looking to reach all OSs at once via a web app.

Java could be brought up again, because of their write-once-run-anywhere idea. They did very well at making sure all Java implementations were compliant. But they had to offer a subset of full native capability, a limitation which was partly worked around by linking to native interfaces in a non-WORA manner. It sounds like any attempt to write once and run on every platform and have the software be as pretty and fast and functional as possible is essentially doomed. There will be limitations to those attempts (UI that doesn't fit in, no integration with platform-specific features like address book or task bar or spotlight, no access to technologies that only exist on a subset of platforms). But you still have the trade-off with the need to write many native versions for competing platforms otherwise.

  The OS market is fragmenting.

This is precisely why the web will win. The time is already here where people have to decide whether to build a desktop app, a smartphone app, a tablet app, or a website that can support all three form factors? We're already there folks. The logistics of supporting 3 different paradigms are breaking down. At the same time a small team cannot build out an iPhone and Android ecosystem simultaneously, and definitely without leaving the Web entirely behind. Whereas if the focus on the web experience they can support every possible paradigm simultaneously.

If we're talking really long-term, I don't see a big difference between loading a web app and having a native app quickly and seamlessly installed and loaded just by clicking on a link. Eventually, improvements in bandwidth and computing power might enable just that. At the end of the day, developers will go with what is more feasible, but the whole distinction between web app and native might disappear from a UX point of view (just like the current web apps are kind of a hybrid between "old" websites and "old" desktop apps).

There are several big hurdles web apps must overcome to replace native apps in my opinion.

One is their reliance on a network connection. I know that sounds absurd since that's largely part of their definition, but consider this: I go to University where I expect that our internet connection is above average compared to the rest of the world. If everything I did on my computer relied on an internet connection, I'd go batshit crazy. The amount of times I've lost connectivity would make my computer a dread to work in that type of scenario. I don't want a chrome book and I don't think most people do.

Secondly, and perhaps a smaller hurdle, the development environment for web app creation just isn't as pleasant as native app development. I admit I have limited experience developing web apps, but to my knowledge there doesn't exist a mature debugger like GDB (I would love to be disproven).

Lastly, I truly believe people appreciate a consistent, usable, and beautiful interface across their whole computing experience. The web is too "grassroots" to provide a platform where I can expect all of the UI idioms and behaviours I've learned in one app to transfer to another app.

I fully agree with you. However. Apple and Google wouldn't want to lose their cash cow app stores so they might hold back their browsers. I would LOVE to see a day when Chrome OS becomes a success. No more gatekeepers. %100 web.

I've seen a lot of Forbes articles appear on HN lately. I don't think a single one of them has seemed the least bit insightful or interesting. They mostly seem to write poorly-based opinion pieces that show ignorance of large swaths of tech. They can usually be summed up as, "Web 2.0 ... Web 2.0 ... Web 2.0 ..."

Pundits gonna pundit

A great example of "how to get 10000 hits in 10 mins". I loved Forbes btw.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com