Interesting video. This makes me wonder what the next truly disruptive technology will be. First there was oil, then the semiconductor, then internet.<p>As a materials scientist, I have to wonder whether the next disruptive force will come from something in the physical form or take a virtual form. Of course these things are impossible to predict, but its fascinating to look at how technology is innovating within my field.<p>For example, one idea that I hear often is a shift from the printing paper industry (which I agree is a dead industry) to a printing electronics industry. There is no reason why this technology cannot be re-used to innovate another industry that is taking another form. There is huge potential in organic electronics and printable displays.<p>Similarly, I believe optics are poised for an "it works" button, as Andreesen says. We've already seen the benefits of fiber optics as tremendously fast information travel, but we're ready to see optical computing and other advanced imaging techniques come into the mainstream.<p>Lastly, we're going to see much more intelligent applications of past ideas. In the past, people would keep to their respective disciplines and innovate within them. Now, everyone is adopting multiple disciplines. We're seeing people who use quantum chemistry to make new materials, intelligent computing and statistics to organize information, and old materials techniques to revolutionize medicine.<p>If you don't re-train in multiple fields, you will be left in the dust. This is how innovation will continue in the future.
Marc Andreesen said that Facebook doesn't run brand advertising by design. Anyone know why this is the case?<p>Even though I don't like advertising generally, I'd much rather look at a well-crafted Nike / Apple creative than the weight loss / degree mill tribal fusionish junk they run now.
At risk of criticizing an industry legend, "If they don't make money today, they easily could," rings false. My guess would be that Facebook will acquire Ning long before this happens.
Two observations about his investment thesis:<p>1. He says you can build companies with "almost no money": $100k - $1M, if I recall correctly.<p>2. He says you can delay profi^H^H^H^H^H revenue almost indefinitely by looking out on the horizon.<p>So given these two facts, when exactly do the founders/managers/employees (all of which are young kids by his own admission) start getting paid real money, like the amount required to buy a house in the Santa Clara valley?<p>Is payoff 100% contingent on a liquidity event and/or perpetual venture capitalization, thereby diluting founders' capital stock further and further? Are his venture founders supposed to continue living in apartments indefinitely while he looks on from his mansion in Atherton and architects the final vision to be realized a decade or more from assignment of preferred stock?<p>His whole management vision starts to look more and more like serfdom the longer you think about it. The immediate analog that springs to mind is the A&R practices of the music industry in which they sign young, naive bands to contracts that essentially bind them into a period of servitude under the guise of a promise of fame and fortune (to be realized in spades at a later date TBD, just trust us guys, you're gonna be rich and famous!!!) while paying for their operating costs with a future claim on earnings.<p>This comparison only gets stronger than it already is when you realize that most financially successful musicians make their money from touring and merchandising - realizing their own revenue in small, and sometimes incremental ways until they get a successful fan/customer base.<p>I mean the whole analogy seems rather obvious to me, and I believe we as (young entrepreneurs of) an industry should learn the lessons of the music/entertainment industry - am I totally wrong here?<p>I see no difference between Marc Andreesen and David Geffen. Except one lives in SF and one lives in LA.