gaisturiz

A fun exercise:

Walk down a street you drive on a regular basis; the things you'll notice will make it seem like you're in a different place altogether.

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.’

Money is a means, not an end (unless of course you’re a rare coins collector.) I don’t consider myself a Silicon Valley insider by any measure, but from the outside it doesn’t seem like there’s an “It’s not about the money” culture. Billion dollar acquisitions and multi-billion dollar IPOs certainly reflect Silicon Valley’s acknowledgement that money is fundamental in any business process. Which brings me back to my first point: to reach any meaningful scale, anyone who wants to solve a problem or make the world more interconnected needs a myriad of resources. It would seem that making money is not only OK, but up to a certain point necessary; not to splurge on yachts and mansions, but rather to acquire the best tools and talent said money can procure.