No. I am saying that Facebook is nothing to sneeze at. It it were so easy to invent Facebook, you would've invented Facebook.
The only problem I have with a comment like this is that there were millions of factors and pieces to the puzzle of creating Facebook, that this is a ridiculous over simplification of how it came to be.
Luck, timing, market condition, state of competition etc...
Zuck is the luckiest person alive to have been in the place he was when he was - its not like he simply invented everything required to make Facebook from zilch. Friendster and MySpace verified the market, zuck had a great twist on that and a million other thing fell into place.
Not to say it was simple and non-trivial, but that comment just has way too much bravado and ego and is just plain stupid.
He did a great job, but there is nobody else who should be using that line in any other context.
I think you're reading too much into this.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules/dp...
It's not rare for people to attribute success only to them self and failure to market conditions.
I'm don't even know what the twist is. People seemed to leave Friendster because it was slow, then left Myspace because it made you sick, then joined Facebook which was like Friendster with active development and also initially seeded with smart people.
The only innovation I can see is that the company was run by a developer who showed that he was going to experiment with and build out the platform continuously in order to attract third-parties to invest in it.
I don't see the same happening with driverless cars, so I am assuming it is more difficult to implement driverless cars than Facebook.
There are actually multiple companies that have prototyped driverless cars, we're just much earlier in the technology cycle for it. But, I digress.