I don't think it's just passing value judgement on these companies to point out that they don't create any value or content of note. I see more and more of these startups every day that are basically dedicated to emphemera. There's a billion different retro photo apps and no one is ever going to produce anything worth saving.<p>Yes, Instagram has some value, but it's in the users and the eye of that particular person that you enjoy. The photographs themselves are rarely anything of note.<p>I do think it's unfair to lump these companies. Hipstamatic is just selling an app. Even if the community turns into nothing, they sold quite a few apps at $2. Most of these companies though have nothing to sell and little value to provide. They are just hoping for some angel to bail them out until the inevitable Google buyout.<p>And stop reading TechCrunch already.
I suppose if this were the 70's he'd be dissing the folks who bought pet rocks. But seriously, why pass judgement on what other people think is worth buying? I've long since given up trying to figure out fashion trends or the people who report on them.
You know, is it just me, or does it seem like working as an engineer for one of the internet gambling/porn sites would be both more fulfilling and challenging than 90%+ of these hipster-social-twitterscape-search-blogomisation things?<p>EDIT: why choose? cant i combine my love for vintage polaroid burlesque with modern erotic search engine optimization?
I think it's a little odd how he chose to pile all those startups together.<p>For example, I think path is a much different animal than the others, and while I agree with his overall point (there are some ridiculous valuations going around), it's more of an angry rant than a critique of the apps themselves.
> What do Path, Hipstamatic, Highlight, Hipster (yes, that’s an app), and Color have in common? They create absolutely nothing of value.<p>The post begins with and relies upon this faulty premise. This is not explained, and I would argue that Hipstamatic and Path <i>do</i> create value for the users. The latter allows me to socialize with people in a more private manner, while the former takes photos, values in of themselves.<p>Furthermore, why must the users of these apps necessarily be "hipsters"? Is this a requirement for the use of these apps? (Clearly not, as Hipstamatic was one of the biggest apps on the store last year, and not all of those users can be generalized as hipsters).
>This is why 90% of the companies posted on TechCrunch fail!<p>How does this figure fair in comparison to other startup, small business failure rates. Isn't the default for most startups death? (pg article for reference - <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/hubs.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.paulgraham.com/hubs.html</a>)
They buy the people not the company. Google and facebook need developers. Not the college graduate developers that have only done school project in C/C++ and never manage anything that people want in their life. They need people like the ones who made path because they know the people who made path understand mobile, understand design, and understand how to gain hype. It wasn't luck these guys were on tech crunch they understood their market. That is what is worth 100 million. Some people are academics, but only real test for a great app developer is can you make something people want.