Hacker News Reader

> "It's a shame that all of that talent is working on things the author doesn't think are worthwhile."

That's an unfair statement - I think more importantly the bubble is making people work on things that they themselves do not believe are worthwhile. You have more and more people entering the market working on things because they think it will flip for ${MAX_INT}, not working on products they genuinely believe people want, or will pay for.

That can all be brought back to values though. If you value ${MAX_INT} in your bank account, then working on whatever will get you there is worthwhile to you.

Regarding that very last fragment, if you get that money, then somebody is willing to pay for it; not in the "customer-producer" form of exchange but the "buy you out" form.

That can only be sustained so long, the company buying you has to get money from somewhere.

> You have more and more people entering the market working on things because they think it will flip for ${MAX_INT}, not working on products they genuinely believe people want, or will pay for.

Do you have any actual examples of this happening?

I'm not saying there aren't people starting companies because they want to get rich, but I don't think it's happening in the droves that people make it seem like it is. I'm as pessimistic about the whole SV culture as they come, to the point of moving away in two weeks, but even I can't say I've met many, if any, people who seemed to be generally disinterested in what they were building, only doing it because they thought they could flip it.

> "Do you have any actual examples of this happening?"

As a guy who hangs out at a number of SF-area meetups and startup events (free booze and food? count me in) I have met many startup employees and founders who freely admit to this.

For the most part people are interested in the work they're doing (big scalability issues, big data problems, etc), but many people are in it for the money (either ludicrous SV salaries or the hope of a massive flip) and don't genuinely believe in what their product does.

I think this is the attitude OP was railing against, and I'm inclined to agree. There are some damn smart cookies in this town, most of whom are incredibly well paid and mobile - to work on something you don't believe in... that seems incredibly wasteful.

I appreciate your relativistic stance, but there's a part of me that wonders if, as an example, Instagram provided a billion dollars worth of additional photo sharing value over what already existed on Facebook.

That is, photo sharing does have value to people who want to stay connected and have shared experiences via the internet, but I don't think that Instagram improved that to the tune of a billion dollars.

Counterexample: I was never interested in photo sharing before Instagram. I wasn't a good enough photographer. Now I can make my photos beautiful enough that I want to share them. Is this worth more than a few dollars to me personally? Yes. If I'm at all like a random person, then it's easy to see how Instagram is worth well over a few billion dollars.

Given the context of the article I think the argument can be made that: even _if_ people are willing to pay a couple dollars and in aggregate a billion dollars it doesn't mean that the money is being well spent or that the product actually provides value.

Thought at that point I think we're dipping into issues of free market and a consumer driven bubble.

Either way, your point is well taken.

I personally don't think Instagram is worth a billion dollars.

But the general consensus is that when Zuck saw those numbers and thought of the upcoming IPO, he saw buying Instagram a very good defensive move that would solidify his company's position in the photo sharing marketplace.

Beating the same Nietzche-esqe drum, Zuck valued buying out the competition to be worth a billion.

I don't think he is arguing that he doesn't like the problems that are being solved. He does mention that he sees the same problems being solved over and over again for more and more money, photo sharing being a timely example.

I don't know if he's right; in general I don't have a solid grasp on how to value companies that aren't making any money.

Assertion: if somebody comes along and solves a problem that was previously thought solved, then they are solving a new problem.

Facebook solved the "How do I share photo's online?" problem. Instagram solved the new problem of "How do I take pictures to put onto Facebook?" problem.

And I have no idea how to value companies that aren't making money. Way beyond me.

I understand, and maybe agree with, your assertion. But, you could also say that this is part of the problem. Does even more refinement, and even better solution to the problem of how to share the trivia of your life with the same few people, really improve the "economic base"? I have no idea. But I think it's a valid question.

> So, who decides what's worthwhile?

If only we had a method whereby members of our society on their own and through businesses could express how much they value products and services being offered by others.

Hmm... I think I'll invent such a system as my next project. Like with any cool project, I should give it a name first and maybe churn out some T-Shirts before I get going on the details.

For a name, I think I'll call it "CapITal1sm!". I still need to come up with all the rules of how it should work. I'll set up a blog and let you all know how it goes. ;)

I really like this idea! i just worry about unintended consequences. Is it possible that some of the people in this CapITal1sm thingy will create products and services that provide short-term temporary value at the expense of long-term value?

Just to give a hypothetical example, could someone create a product that, when consumed, confers temporary euphoria but poisons the user with tar and carbon monoxide, eventually creating lung cancer?

How do we “value” such a product/ If it generates billions of dollars worth of “value,” is it worthwhile?

> Just to give a hypothetical example, could someone create a product that, when consumed, confers temporary euphoria but poisons the user with tar and carbon monoxide, eventually creating lung cancer?

Good question. We'll need some sort of legal framework whereby it's punishable for the creators of products/services... (I'll call them $ellers (never knew what that "$" key was good for, but it looks like an "S")) to make claims that just aren't true about their products/services. We'll also need to give victims a means to collect some sort of compensation when they're hurt by a $eller... particularly when it's the result of a false claim. Families of victims could also get compensation when the victim croaks. Croak? Funny. I think when a $eller lies I'll call it "Frog".

> How do we “value” such a product/ If it generates billions of dollars worth of “value,” is it worthwhile?

What are dollars? Is that how people vote for their favorite products? I was thinking "voting tickets" or simply "vickets". I'm open to ideas, though, so sure... let's use your dopey "dollars" term.

Anyway, the answer is -- No, because victims will be able to charge $ellers with frog. We can make it a crime punishable with jail time as well. That should discourage it heavily.

But otherwise for $ellers that don't violate these new laws that I'm drafting, we DO associate with billions of "dollars" with value. I think that's a great idea.

Next question?