I vociferously disagree. This is social hacker news. This article talks about the externalized costs of buying salmon that are not represented accurately enough, thus highlighting a huge problem/unmet need.
This is the community, if one exists that has the ability to create the technical hacks necessary to create social change. We can create tools/systems to solve problems like these, e.g., measuring externalized costs that prices do not/cannot account for. Until we more accurately represent costs/effects in our behaviors/purchases, it will be difficult to effectively promote positive behavior, i.e., solving the big problem.
I vociferously disagree. This is social hacker news. This article talks about the externalized costs of buying salmon that are not represented accurately enough, thus highlighting a huge problem/unmet need.
This is the community, if one exists that has the ability to create the technical hacks necessary to create social change. We can create tools/systems to solve problems like these, e.g., measuring externalized costs that prices do not/cannot account for. Until we more accurately represent costs/effects in our behaviors/purchases, it will be difficult to effectively promote positive behavior, i.e., solving the big problem.
"Maybe Google will follow suit and allow developers to embed their applications in Google too?"
I am sure they are considering something along those lines. The main problem they will face is how to create a viral system of distribution for these applications that can be as effective as the Facebook feeds.
"You don't think you're overselling an API just a little?"
It's about the precedent that Facebook has just set by opening up its doors to the world, allowing outside "add-ons" not even affiliated directly with FB to generate revenue through FB.
"the new Facebook Platform is a dramatic leap forward for the Internet industry." - Marc Andreessen
Of course it is, if you don't realize it, you just aren't creative enough to imagine the applications that will revolutionize the Industry. I'm not necessarily saying that Facebook will be the social network that can appeal to 90% of Internet users, but that is what they are betting on. Eventually everyone who uses the Internet will be interacting in a "social network", why? because its a more efficient way to share information.
I think MZ realized that there are so many people with so many amazing, revolutionary ideas, it would not be possible to try and incorporate all of their brilliant ideas. Instead, he decided to open it up and bet on the fact that these entrepreneurs with revolutionary ideas would figure out ways to monetize these ideas through Facebook.
Like MZ says, Everybody wins. Thats the precedent he is setting and that is why this year, leading up to Nov 2008 will be a year to remember. (remember there was no Youtube or Facebook in 2004)
Google should be worried. By opening its doors to the world, Facebook is in effect employing 33k of the brightest, more entrepreneurial minds the world has to offer.
These developers will create great applications that function like advertising, only better. These applications will allow businesses to connect with customers like never before.
Furthermore, I predict because all major businesses will be interacting through Facebook, a new form of currency will begin to emerge.
We are only beginning to see the potential of this platform. Developers are just beginning to "learn the ropes" of this new medium on which to build. The next year will be one to remember for our species.
What would be better is a well edited documentary, comparing the two biggest start-up incubators Ycombinator and Techstars.
It would be a fantastic promotional documentary for all party's involved. Heck, you could even turn it into some kind of reality Tv show if your wanted to where the 2 incubators compete somehow. 1st season broadcast via Youtube + HD websites. 2nd season via NBC.
its a reality based tv show where 2000 door to door summer salespeople compete to see who can sell the most, what garbage!! The people at Ycombinator and Techstars are the future leaders of the world! How much more interesting can you get!?
If your interested in this idea I will be in the Bay area March 22-27. [email protected]
The web is evolving very fast these days. It seems to me that because of our connections and web browsing habits, people reading this are often disconnected from how "normal" people view the web. Let me assure you, this web 2.0 craze we are seeing is no bubble. What will happen? well, in a sense, web 2.0 is really interactive web 1.0. The future leaders of the social web will analyze the strengths and weaknesses of today's leaders: Google, Facebook, Myspace, Del.icio.us, Wikipedia, and Craigslist. (technology increases exponentially: never forget this)
When a website incorporates all the positives of these types of websites into 1 all encompassing tool for organizing the unlimited information of the Internet, then we will see something great. We will see an evolution of these tools and it will not only be something people can use to get more efficiency out of life, it will actually improve people's lives and societies (globally).
If you think the effects social networks and human/computer interaction are amazing, wait until you see the children of these sites. It is *absolutely* not a coincidence that the founders of Reddit played WoW. They realize that power of a website is directly correlated to the amount of user input into a website. The dilemma we entrepreneurs are faced with today is creating systems that encourage maximum participation.
How does this tie into the 53,000 theory? None of the big winners, and I am talking the big ones, facebook, myspace, google, msnpages, orkut, (these are the sites that lead the world in user participation) succeeded because of blog recommendations. They succeeded because they were better ways of experiencing the Internet, not because some ÃÂexpertÃÂ on techcrunch told the geeks it was a cool product.
Well, there are many amazing "web 2.0" websites out there that will never be used by the masses until their friends, not techcrunch, invites them.
On the Internet, the best solution always win. Humans are economical; they do what is best for themselves. When we create a search/browsing tool that is at the same time more rewarding and fun than myspace/wikipedia/delicious/digg we will see the whole world adopt this method, the same way the world has adopted the Google search, the same way all the ÃÂcoolÃÂ people are on myspace. This website will not only be as "cool" and as fun, it will actually enhance people's lives.
This is the future of the web. It is also no coincidence that VC's like the one whom this post is referring to, have seen a lot of "like delicious but XXX" or "Digg killers" This is not just hype, one day it will happen. One day there will be a delicapedieddit that will emerge as the new Internet powerhouse.
I am finishing up my last semester of Business School and I just sit in class reading Popurls.com while teachers ramble on and on. I have learned so much more about entrepreneurship, history, news, world status, and everything else than my classes could possibly teach me. I am just glad all this training to be a sheep will be over soon.
This top 10 list is worthless your right. especially to this community. Heres why:
The entrepreneurs on this "newsgroup" are ALL web entrepreneurs. This means that half of the criteria do not even pertain our needs/interests as founders of entrepreneurial ventures. (tech populations / graduation rates may apply but those should be looked at separately.
Let me pose this question. If VC/angel fudning / programmers needs / location was not an issue, where would you start your company?
There are a lot of places in this country that in my opinion would gather much more interest on a local level that starting a company in NY or SF. I think by starting a web company in an already "hot" web area is like opening a starbucks across the street from a starbucks? Sure you know it will get business, but it would be better if it was the 1st starbucks on a major University Campus.
By launching in a less saturated market, you have the benefit of traditional sources of media attention so that you receive high adoption rates locally, which as we know is vital to high adoption rates globally. Does company location have anything to do with adoption rates?
I agree, I have long thought that Yahoo was getting "blown out of the water" and they must to *something* to breathe a little life back into their once dominant company.
I have been battling myself over the issue of who to go to with my idea. I believe from my incredibly fortunate and diverse upbringing, lifelong experiences with computers, social networks, MMO interactions, I have come up with a web application that will organize the worlds information in a better way. As a result it will not only appeal to everyone, but help everyone in the world with a computer live more productive and "better" lives. Ambitious? yes. But in case you didn't know.. Facebook, Myspace, Wiki, and Reddit are represent the infant stage of how we will organize the worlds information.
The problem I face now is who to go to... Do I find team of great "Hackers" (not so easy to find in Madison but I will be graduating in May) and start working on a beta and focus on angel/seed/Ycom funding? Do i go to the Bill and Melinda gates foundation and go though probably years of red tape in order to get my idea noticed. Or do I go to a company like Yahoo and tell them "your whole web philosophy and yahoo pages are flawed and I can show you how you can regain the Internet power you once had" Or do I just apply to their "brickhouse" division and hope they give me stock if my idea is successful.
The dilemma as I see it is that because this will be my lifelong endeavor, I want to give it the best chance to succeed. It is not even about the money, even though the most powerful information browsing tool (google currently) will always be the most powerful and profitable company in the world. I just want to make sure Rupert's empire doesn't get a hold of these ideas because it could be used for real evil if all the worlds information was in his hands...
In my opinion Facebook and Myspace are easily worth 5 billion each. Just because of the fact that if they were to significantly add features that would pave the way for future e-commerce and social bookmarking they could start with a tremendous amount of base users.
However, I feel that even the leaders Google, Facebook, Reddit/Digg, wikipedia etc. are extremely prone to "better" products being developed.
Friendster is the cliche. Myspace came out and simply by creating a move customizable and music - friendly layout, attracted musicians and most importantly (all their fans) I feel that even Google's adsense and search engine advertising is not the best.
The Internet allows for the most optimal ways sharing information as a species and we will continue to develop the web tools that are most important for the advancement of our cultures. This is where we will see true Internet Goliaths. I think in 5-10 years the largest internet company will be worth trillions, rather than billions.
Does anyone else agree that not only is technology increasing exponentially, but the price of the greatest Internet companies will also continue to increase exponentially? does anyone else think that there is is a website format that the world could use as its official database off information? I see it and hope it will lead to a new, and better age of human existence. Does anyone else?
This is the community, if one exists that has the ability to create the technical hacks necessary to create social change. We can create tools/systems to solve problems like these, e.g., measuring externalized costs that prices do not/cannot account for. Until we more accurately represent costs/effects in our behaviors/purchases, it will be difficult to effectively promote positive behavior, i.e., solving the big problem.