Bio not provided
@paulcarr You offer several well-reasoned arguments and they are somewhat persuasive. They would have been even more so without the accompanying insults.
You are quite correct that I know little about the tech industry. This is one of the reasons I read PandoDaily, to learn more. To learn quicker still, I try to think about things, articulate my thoughts, and then learn from others, as one does in a blog comments section, so shoot me.
As someone far more knowledgeable, you seem to be bolstering my own thesis when you point out that TC runs positive stories and invites all CrunchFund companies to speak at TC disrupt. You are right -- I seemed to have underestimated their own bias. So I guess you are agreeing with me that an assertion of potential bias is reasonable based on a blog's investors and positive stories about them.
That Sarah made her statements about "monetizing influence" in public obviously doesn't change my impression that it appears inappropriate. I would have thought she would appreciate this feedback. I guess the repeated insults from you and Sarah explain why so few others dare articulate such opinions in the comments. FYI this adds yet another layer of bias to the blog. If Pando fails in generating an engaged community, please think back on this exchange as one of the possible explanations.
2 years ago on No, Feedgen, I Won’t Publish the Article You Wrote About Yourself Under My Byline
@paulcarr Sarah described the PandoDaily business model in her own words one week ago at PandoMonthly:
(Transcript starting at 24:28) "I mean this is the whole premise basically of our company. I was at TechCrunch before and I always thought TechCrunch made everybody else more money than it ever made itself, because it just never monetized influence. So, was that TechCrunch's fault? Is that the market's fault? Is the market going to change? I mean I think this is one of our biggest challenges as a company, is finding a way to get rewarded for influence, for, ya know, a company being written about on our site and getting funding as a result."
On SarahLacy.com, she says this about business models: "In many cases, blogs haven't yet figured out a way to monetize their influence. TechCrunch had an insane amount of reach and influence compared to any other platform for which I've written. And yet, TechCrunch made the least per ad of any platform for which I've written. There's something wrong with that, and it'll get rectified at some point."
You point out that Pando makes money "from events, some ads and the occasional book project". But the majority of money Pando is burning through is seed money from its investors. If TechCrunch were to repeatedly write glowingly about AOL properties, they would receive criticism. At least Arrington always owned his appearance of bias. The Pando editor-in-chief boasts about monetizing influence while at the same time authoring numerous stories about Pando investors as well as companies in their portfolios. As a regular reader of the blog, I noticed that each of these articles has been glowingly positive. To be clear, all I said was that this comes off sounding inappropriate.
Does this make me an "idiot", a "troll", a "fucking dickhead"? I thought the posts are for the authors and the comments are for the readers. It is insulting to have my sincerity challenged, especially when I have not done this to you. I understand you feel the goals here are noble and quite possibly you are correct. I have supported (with evidence) everything I said in my original post. To arrive at an impression different from yours doesn't make me "a fucking dickhead".
@paulcarr If you are disputing my claim that Sarah Lacy has indicated several times that Pando intends to make money off of "influence" (her word not mine), I would be very glad to post this evidence. It will take some time/effort, so I welcome you to return to this comment section for links to the evidence.
And please don't refer to me as "Idiot" in the future. I promise to extend you the same courtesy.
@Feedgen Where did you get the impression that PandoDaily is in the "business of entertainment". Its founder and editor-in-chief has made clear both in print and in video (a plug for PandoMonthly...yay) that Pando's business model is based not on pageviews but in monetizing "influence". Based on the way she boasts about the wisdom of this approach, I can only assume she has no idea just how seedy and inappropriate that sounds, particularly when half the top figures in the Valley are Pando "investors". This makes it all the more strange for her go on these rants about journalistic standards.
@Joe Mellin Undoubtedly Facebook was already a home run, based on the $$$ made by founders, ground floor employees and early-stage investors. But those $$$ were just funny money, not business profits. Will there be any more "home runs" if even grand slam companies like Facebook and Twitter fail to turn a significant and sustainable profit in the future? If they don't, investment $$$ might dry up and Sacks's comments might seem a little more prescient.
2 years ago on David Sacks’ Argument Is Rational, It’s a Good Thing Silicon Valley Isn’t
@Joe Mellin According to Wikipedia the Duell quote, while amusing, has been debunked as apocryphal.
I join those praising this piece, but only for its elegant articulation of a vision diametrically opposite to Sacks's. But when returning from rhetoric to reality, one notices that even today's winners are potentially mid- or long-term dogs. In just three months, those who were so certain Facebook would score huge $$$ from advertising without perturbing its audience have gone silent. All these doubts are surrounding the Valley's most insanely successful company led by its premier irrational "genius".
Always fun being proved wrong, but like Sacks for the foreseeable future my money is on the smart and rational.
While TC's Intern/Co-Editor sets a very low bar, her banishment to NYC suggests AOL is getting serious. Now Team Pando is stepping up its game as well. Having seen Penenberg in interviews, there is no question this is a very substantial addition.
In just a few short weeks I've found new hope for tech journalism.
2 years ago on NFW: Adam Penenberg Joins PandoDaily as Editor
@andrewfister Trevor seems to have it out for my alma mater, but is showing real signs of improvement. In his post covering the Seattle startup scene, he originally went with "UC Champlain".
2 years ago on Boulder’s Startup Ecosystem: Pros and Cons
Another great PandoMonthly. But the shoutout at 1:47:40 succinctly explains why Pando's comment sections have become a ghost town. Anyone offering a dissenting opinion or criticism is a "dickhead commenter" and should be ignored or told to f*ck-off. That's not how you build engagement. You may learn one of these days that not all of the constructive critique you have worked so hard at discouraging is off the mark. By that time it will be all gone. Hooray.
2 years ago on PandoMonthly NYC with Ben Lerer Post-Event Recap
@Alterax My resistance was futile! That's it. I'm joining the party woohoo!!
Soon I may be "tweeting about it for hours" like nosequepongo_.
2 years ago on Plug.dj’s Non-Explosive Growth Is Its Biggest Asset
@nosequepongo_ You point out: "as far as I know the people that commented this are real users of plug.dj".
By a huge coincidence, both "Alterax" and "Royal_Soda" also commented on another blog post about plug.dj three weeks ago. Their comments were 5 minutes apart, so they must be big fans. In his comment, "Royal_Soda" first pointed out "I love Plug.DJ Visiting it is part of my daily routine" before adding "Props on the article, although I'd like to point out that Plug.DJ supports 50+ languages, not 8" (see http://techcocktail.com/plug-dj-media-music-vide-2012-07)
@Alterax Your twitter account (@4lt3r4x a.k.a. "Plug.dj Brand Ambassador!") does confirm that you are a big fan of plug.dj. In fact, every one of your 212 tweets is either about plug.dj or a retweet from @plugdj. Here is my favorite tweet of yours: "Don't forget to follow us on twitter at @plugdj so you don't miss the new events and parties coming!" (http://twitter.com/4lt3r4x/status/222745205911203841)
Was browsing on the PandoDaily homepage and was stunned to see a post with an 8-person comment thread, so I clicked it eagerly to see what was driving this "engagement". It seems like the whole marketing team from plug.dj signed up for new Livefyre accounts and left comments like "check out plug.dj, it's great!!". Nice touch how they also liked each others posts. My favorite one is the heartfelt testimonial, "I love Plug.dj!", from a Livefyre account pointing directly to the plug.dj homepage. Maybe instead of leaving phony comments, they could detail for readers the amount of "investment" plug.dj will make in Pando should Pando's "influence" help plug.dj get funding. Now that would be interesting.
Since nobody real is participating anyway, I wonder if it is time to turn off PandoDaily comments altogether.
Since Arrington was fired, is there no one on Team Pando with any sort of legal background or competence? It definitely shows. As with other posts having an IP focus, there are many uninformed statements:
- "There are a few things that Fab needs to prove in order to assert its claim of trade dress infringement".
You failed to mention a critical burden of proof in a trade dress case, which is "likelihood of confusion". When an ordinary buyer visits the "Touch of Modern" site, selects items, and makes a purchase, is he confused that maybe Fab was the source of the goods?
- "The lawsuit attached two screenshots of the sites, and the resemblance is striking. The photograph of the apartment in the background is clearly 'inspired' by Fab".
Maybe you attached the wrong photos because the apartment photos you provide bear no resemblance to each other. This goes also for the photos that TechCrunch published which are the ones from the law suit.
- "It’s a risky case, more so when faced with the fact that both companies are still startups, and will need to devote sizable resources towards legal fees pursuing the case in court".
Legal fees on this sort of case aren't nearly as costly as you seem to think. I think Fab will manage somehow as they have just concluded a $105 million funding round.
- "If the case goes to trial, it will all come down to the assertion that Fab actually does have exclusive rights to its design and its underlying business model".
I guess everyone can save a lot of time and effort, since you have already isolated the central legal issue that will be decisive in this case. Forget meeting burdens of proof. Why bother having attorneys and judges consider the relevant legal statutes and interpret fancy-schmancy case law? It's so unnecessary.
- Whether they prevail or not in their charge of copyright infringement, Fab would not likely be labeled a "copyright troll", since usage of this term has been limited to cases where there has been exact copying and wherein the plaintiff's goal was not to discourage copying per se, but rather to extract damage awards or financial settlements.
- "If the evidence holds up, it will be clear that Fab’s website was copied by Touch of Modern"; "the actual copying shouldn’t be in dispute".
2 years ago on Breaking Down Fab’s Copycat Claims Against Touch of Modern: Innovate, Don’t Copy
This video and write-up were interesting and hopefully will succeed in encouraging readers to increase their awareness and understanding of this important topic.
That said, the presentation does have a bit of an anti-patent bias. GMOs are an example of the patent statute elegantly achieving its purpose of promoting innovation. If the "fruits" of their innovations were made free for all to use (pun intended), there would be little incentive for companies to invest in the costly R&D necessary to develop these improved products. Awarding a limited monopoly on the innovations is an appropriate incentive. Certainly the PandoDaily audience doesn't resent the fact that hard working research scientists profit from their efforts? Or should profits only be awarded to internet entrepreneurs?
Unfortunately the video also implies that the positives and negatives are in some sort of balance. The more one looks into this topic, the more they will learn that the pros vastly outweigh the cons. That is why a huge portion of U.S. crops are already GMOs (corn = 86%, soybeans = 93%). Are there negatives? Of course. But with increased development effort, the pro/con disparity only grows. A good analogy is vaccinations. Sure there are possible negative effects, but the positives are part of the reason why life expectancy and general population health have been consistantly on the rise.
2 years ago on PandoHouse Rock — The GMO Song: “OMG GMOs!”
@rehbein So true...and Arrington the worst fire. Never mind, hooray for Hallie!
2 years ago on What’s Still Holding Back a Small Business Software Revolution
We have seen PandoMonthly grow stronger with each execution, from the first almost disastrous one with Arrington, to the recent fascinating and revelatory ones with the likes of Moskovitz, Thiel, Pincus and Horowitz. And she has hustled to put together an incredible lineup still to come. Sarah is the common denominator in its success. She is nothing short of phenomenal in this role.
But there is a painful truth growing increasingly more obvious to the Pando readership. This role -- not being a tech blog editor-in-chief -- is her natural calling. And not just PandoMonthly interviews. Sarah could quite easily be the face of a tech conference brand that would have all the pizzazz of Disrupt and Launch plus all the class of AllThingsD. If she could get Arrington back on "Team Pando", her team would blow away the band of amateurs at TechCrunch. Sarah connects with people when she is on camera, with a class and sincerity that obliterates Calacanis and his snake oil salesman charm.
That said, the blog is nothing special. There is little engagement in terms of comments, and their best posts (usually Sarah's) always strike me as rushed and unpolished. If someone she trusts is reading this, please do the right thing. Tell her it is time to pivot.
2 years ago on PandoMonthly with Reid Hoffman Post-Event Recap
@rszrama Learning how much you appreciate these valuable insights has made my day. Thanks!
2 years ago on ComScore’s Lawsuit Against Three Startups Is Pretty Deplorable
The author has neither the IP background nor the business experience to evaluate the legal merits or business implications of this law suit. Moreover those with such a background would still need quite a few more facts of the case and do quite a bit more analysis before rendering a sophisticated opinion. But her arguments can be evaluated even without detailed knowledge of the case:
(1) the law suit is "ridiculous" because some of the patents have broad claims.
The goal when pursuing patent coverage is to obtain broad claims since they have more strategic value. Should companies invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in obtaining IP rights and then purposely sabotage their patent claims so that they cover a narrower range of potential products? Should patent owners be flat out forbidden from enforcing broad claims?
(2) the law suit is "ridiculous" because some of the patents are late in their lifetime.
Patent rights extend approximately 20 years from the date of filing, which is in line with international consensus. If you disagree with this legislatively established patent term, you have the freedom to work to elect representatives who amend these laws.
(3) the law suit is not about protecting IP, it's about protecting one's own ass and this is "silliness".
Actually that is exactly why hundreds of thousands of dollars are expended in obtaining IP rights. They are tools for protecting the business interests of the company who holds these rights.
(4) the law suit is "deplorable" because they have chosen to sue small guys, not Google or "less-funded startups".
All competent attorneys would advise their clients to consider the business climate and the financial standing of the potential defendant(s) among other factors when deciding whether to file a law suit. Not doing so would be idiotic.
(5) the law suit is "deplorable" because ComScore didn't even develop this technology to begin with.
IP rights can be bought and sold according to the patent statute. That is why it is common for companies to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase patent portfolios. But exercising these rights is "deplorable"?
(6) the law suit is "deplorable" because ComScore's own claims to viewable technology are a little loose.
Their claims and assertions are irrelevant, but the legal scope of the patent claims they are asserting are relevant.
It is my hope that PandoDaily staff writers consult with people possessing an IP background for future articles on similar subject matter. One last more cynical point. When Pando investors and/or big and popular players like Apple (yes, they are in the midst of a patent law suit) file patent infringement suits, they ought to be judged according to these same criteria. Not doing so would be transparent journalistic bias.
While Ocko and Bogue "have pretty strict guidelines for the companies they invest in" (each one relating to big data), we also learn that both are heretofore anonymous investors in PandoDaily, a tech blog. It is described as "a small amount", presumably so small that they were not listed in the original disclosure of 10 individuals and 8 seed funds that have invested in Pando.
With respect to both investor and investee, I have to wonder whether a few grand in seed money -- even if invested in good faith -- is worth creating the appearance of a quid pro quo for this and any subsequent posts about Data Collective or their portfolio companies.
2 years ago on New VC Firm Data Collective Launches to Invest in Big Data with a Big Partnership
Two things about this post trouble me.
Francisco gives the appearance he is coining the term "Looterism". The Akerlof and Romer article he quotes is entitled "Looting: The Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit", which is curiously similar to Francisco's post title "Looterism: The Cancerous Ethos That Is Gutting America". Hence, not only the term "Looterism", but also the post title itself appear to be derivative and somewhat uncredited.
Secondly, three weeks ago Tim O'Reilly, the founder of O'Reilly media with over 1.6 million followers on Google+, extracted and commented on the identical Akerlof and Romer quote in his Google+ public feed. Like Francisco, he misattributed the quote to 1996, but he did link to the source article which was published in 1994. Did O'Reilly's remarks inspire this post and if so does he deserve acknowledgement?
2 years ago on Looterism: The Cancerous Ethos That Is Gutting America
@EJ Those who have been around the block a few times figure that Sarah did a little timeline "switcho-chango" with respect to when Amanda decided to move on and when the PandoList was cut. Also it is clear you never checked out her content, because while she certainly is a knockout herself, that's a shutterstock image, not Amanda.
2 years ago on A Sad Goodbye to the PandoList and Amanda Schwab
@sarahlacy @LucidLunatic For those who are quick to dismiss engaged and concerned readership as trolls, here are some dated comments (including mine) praising the PandoList, while at the same time offering constructive feedback on the presentation and layout. See especially the last several comments here: (LINK REMOVED: see PandoList from June 1, 2012)
This feedback came two full months ago. Had Sarah devoted a portion of "the resources of almost three full-time people" to fixing this issue, this might have ended differently. I will miss this high quality content and I do hope something similar returns soon.
(Note: this is a verbatim re-post of my earlier comment, presumably moderated because it contained an HTTP link back to an earlier PandoDaily post)
@sarahlacy You attempt to be candid and transparent with your readers and I applaud that. But you have a hard time accepting candid feedback in return. You are a great talent, but not everything you do is golden. Not everyone who points that out is a hater. Some are actually fans.
@davidpayne11 the CEO title is for managing the $2.5 million in funding from advertisers (or as Sarah prefers to call them, "investors")
This was a great article and that will be one badass-looking robot.
2 years ago on Stompy: A Hardware Project That Even Kickstarter Must Love
Levie's quote on the $125 million round supports my thesis:
"Taking this round gives us the foundation to build the foundation we need"
2 years ago on Why Box’s $125M Round Is Good for Software
Seven years ago Box was ahead of the curve, but the curve has caught up. Why would someone purchase them for upwards of a billion dollars when their technology is becoming commonplace? Competitive solutions may be behind, but not years behind.
In interviews, Levie responds to this criticism mostly with a lot of hand waving. Maybe I am projecting, but I also detect an unmistakable look of panic in his eyes.
@sarahcuda Wrote this before the byline was switched from Nathan Pensky to you. You are certainly qualified to offer this opinion, even if doing so might be considered to be in poor taste.
2 years, 1 month ago on Facebook Doesn’t Need a New CEO, Reuters Needs a New Technology Writer
After reviewing your LinkedIn profile, I feel obliged to point out that not everyone shares the expansive experience and insight you have earned in the trenches as a tech reporter since September 2011. In view of this, please show him some mercy.
Has he personally witnessed Zuck making "intense judgment calls" as you have? If he did, surely he would fawn over him as you do.
Is it his fault he didn't know that Sheryl Sandberg had been promoted to "Facebook President" as you report?
In a tweet, cub reporter Kara Swisher called this "a thoughtful piece". Tell us, does AllThingsD need a new technology writer as well?
Not sure she was a "dream candidate" for CEO. To me that implies someone with proven CEO experience. For Yahoo this seems to be a risky choice with great upside but also significant downside potential. From her perspective, clearly a great move filled with exciting new challenges.
2 years, 1 month ago on Why on Earth Did Marissa Mayer Say Yes to Yahoo?
Wonderful stream quality a first for PandoMonthly. Thank you Livestream.com.
2 years, 1 month ago on PandoMonthly Presents: A Fireside Chat with Elon Musk
You are a co-smanker if the sum total of your influence comes from reporting on incremental tech news, and you lead off a blog post, "F*ckers I am so sick of reporting on incremental tech news".
2 years, 1 month ago on You Might Be A Smanker If…
@glennkelman Haven't you heard? According to an intern-level writer over at TC, f#ck is the new black.
2 years, 2 months ago on It’s Official, Facebook Killed a Shaky IPO Market — Is a Rebound Coming?
@paulcarr Just kidding... big fan. Don't go changin' :-)
2 years, 2 months ago on Oddly Enough, I Don’t Hate Business Insider Because Of Its Brilliance
At least BI has executed and has content. Or in other words, let he who has delivered the second pilot issue cast the first stone...
Should be interesting to hear a partner from Andreessen Horowitz explain how the firm feels about funding a company whose mobile flirting app was allegedly used by three men to pose as teenagers, then meet and rape children. Will there be a question on this topic? This story is clearly newsworthy but neither PandoDaily nor TechCrunch has done any reporting.
2 years, 2 months ago on PandoMonthly Presents: A Fireside Chat with Ben Horowitz
Good get by Sarah and timely, too. Looking forward to reporting on the Skout controversy from Silicon Valley's site-of-record.
2 years, 2 months ago on Tickets for PandoMonthly SF with Ben Horowitz are on Sale NOW!
Blown away by Hallie's illustration. Sarah may bask in the reflected glory.
2 years, 2 months ago on TastemakerX: Whistling Past the Startup Music Graveyard by Sidestepping the RIAA
Phenomenal illustration by Hallie. Far more thought provoking than the 1000 words that followed.
2 years, 2 months ago on The (dis)Connected World, Pt. 1
The comparison with "The Social Network" breaks down somewhat when you consider the film was adapted from a book based on Saverin's perspective, not Zuckerberg's. Isaacson was personally chosen by Jobs to be his biographer. My take from listening to several Isaacson interviews was that Jobs himself greatly influenced the focus and bias of that biography.
Not sure I agree that Zuckerberg "is not the least bit insecure". Hiding out in the bathroom during the roadshow? Sweating uncontrollably when grilled by Walt Mossberg? Can't wait for the first earnings call. There is an apt cliché about character being defined not by how someone deals with success, but by how they deal with adversity. Note in proof: Yes, I did name Mossberg instead of Kara Swisher to bolster my argument, because damn that girl is intimidating. I would sweat, too.
2 years, 2 months ago on Can You Handle the Truth? Aaron Sorkin’s Steve Jobs Movie is Going to be a Disaster
Starting to understand why Sarah is constantly raving about your work product. But from the homepage and RSS snippets, who would ever know that clicking would yield a series of engaging video vignettes complemented with concise text bios? Hoping that the layout and syndication are improved, so that your content doesn't remain hidden from prospective viewers.
2 years, 2 months ago on PandoList: 5 “First In, Last Out” Engineers
@KenG Good points. But the law is in fact written by congress and interpreted by our judiciary. The USPTO does its best with limited staff to follow the law. The statutory definition is set out principally in sections 101-103 of United States Code Title 35 - Patents, which is authored and amended by our congress:
The statutory language is purposefully ambiguous, so where the line is drawn, particularly with respect to "software" patents or what practitioners call "business method" patents, is usually found by interpreting opinions of higher courts. A nice summary is here:
Rather than leave it to the courts to interpret, we can have our representatives amend Title 35. They made rather radical changes to it just last year.
2 years, 2 months ago on PandoDaily At D10: Intellectual Ventures’ Nathan Myhrvold Defends His Patent Lawsuits
@KenG Maybe we should stop paying architects, too. Just kidding.
No question that some patents are simply the result of a flashes of inspiration, but others result from costly development efforts. To punish the latter group because of the former doesn't seem fair. You are right that defining where we set the bar for awarding a 20-year monopoly is potentially the real debate here. Raising the bar and/or shortening the monopoly period would be potential improvements. Both the definition of patentable subject matter and the duration of exclusivity are arbitrary. They have been set by our legislatures and can be changed by them.
Is Intellectual Ventures "taking advantage of the system". Sure. Just like my bank, which pays 0.1 % interest on my savings, but charges 16% interest on my credit card. Just like Facebook, which due to network effects is now empowered to gobble up or squash any competitor. Aren't they also creative people solving problems?
@KenG Cannot speak to his character on other fronts, but calling someone a patent troll for monetizing intellectual property, just because he does not make personal use of it, is like calling your landlord a housing troll for collecting rent but not personally residing in your apartment.
@MPGjon "Going to the moon" in and of itself is not patentable. While you might obtain a patent with claims covering a method for traveling to the moon, such claims could not possibly cover all other methods for going to the moon. Your patent could, however, cover improved methods that you did not yourself devise, but which incorporate all of the same method steps recited in your claims.
It is a bit too simplistic to suggest dramatically limiting patent scope to particular executions, since they would be so easy to circumvent as to be worthless: e.g., replace a screw with a rivet and you would not infringe.
Not sure why you are badmouthing the "thermal refreshing of bread" patent (I am assuming you mean US 6,080,436). The claims describe a method of exposing bread to infrared radiation at extremely high temperatures for a particular period of time. While I have not studied the file history or conducted bread refreshing research personally, the inventor claims there are unexpected results at a particular temperature range. According to established case law, things like unexpected results can help one obtain patentability for a particular parameter range even when the overall concept may be obvious. That said, sleep easy because heating bread in your toaster or microwave would not infringe this patent, and it is now expired anyway for failure to pay maintenance fees.
@AnthonyPaulPriley Several of your statements are plainly inaccurate. As a U.S. patent agent, registered to practice before the USPTO, I feel obliged to add a few points of clarification.
First, extensive R&D is not required to define valuable patent claims. There is no requirement to build a working model or even to do anything more than committing pen to paper. A patent description need not describe "every little step to achieve a desired result". In the U.S. at least, that which is claimed must be described in sufficient detail as to enable one who is skilled in the art to practice one version of the claimed invention. Most aspects are intuitive and are not described. Even the more critical claimed aspects usually need not be described in great detail either: no specs, measurements, nothing. But more important than that, a single patent claim in theory has sufficient scope to cover an infinite number of inventions, but more practically speaking certainly sufficient scope to cover hundreds of diverse inventions, such as any improvements to the invention that still contain all of the claimed features. The patent description only needs to provide sufficient detail to practice just one such invention. Numerous other inventions never contemplated by the inventor(s) often fall within the claim scope and are subject to the same monopoly protection of those that were.
@Maarlon1 Maybe if you viewed the brief interview I was referencing (http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-2005-early-interview-2012-5) you would have better appreciated my sarcasm. Even well into his tenure at Facebook, Zuck had absolutely no clue what he was sitting on. Strong evidence that at least in the early days Facebook's evolution was not guided by a genius vision. As @KenG points out, there's not a whole lot of evidence for genius surfacing later either.
2 years, 3 months ago on So Facebook Isn’t the New Google, But Zuckerberg Could Be the New Bezos
Note to webmaster: apply transparent color overlay to sponsored posts (for reference see Techmeme or Google)
2 years, 3 months ago on Get.com Redesign Makes It a Free Crowdsourced Consumer Reports
In view of a whole post devoted to the operating practices and reputation of his firm, it's curious there is no on the record quote from the general partner with whom you met. Is there more to this story?
2 years, 3 months ago on Austin’s Warped Center of Gravity