The Problem With Marc Andreessen

I don't understand.<p>The man created the web browser, built multiple billion dollar companies, angel invested and sits on the board of Facebook, and is now one of the most well known VCs in the world - and this is saying what - that he's not as good as Felix thinks he could be?<p>What the hell has Felix Salmon ever done?<p>I'm seeing more and more of this: pundits and armchair entrepreneurs online who just can't help but tear down people who went in the arena and worked their asses off and built something.<p>Shut up and go build something people want.

The article presents an interesting point of view that I think is probably goes too far. It's not Marc's fault if the giant lumbering behemoths that buy companies don't know what to do with them. That's almost intrinsic in their natures, actually, that they'll screw it up. Even the best tech companies do it time and again, and with very good properties.<p>But this line in particular stands out- "...buy its stake in the shadowy secondary market instead."<p>Come on. Shadowy? Really? Making it sound like he's buying plutonium or something.

Netscape's core was reborn as Firefox. Netscape invented the image tag, along with much of what we consider essential to what the internet is today. Most here would probably attest that it was also the superior product in its day, only losing out to IE thanks to questionably legal monopoly muscling from MS.<p>Opsware was purchased for $1.6bn by HP, hardly a failure...<p>Andreesen has a strong history of execution and value generation and Netscape was a pioneer, not a cheap shareholder exploitation vehicle. This article is grasping at straws.<p>Edit: Clearly HP the thought Opsware was extremely valuable at the time of purchase and the author provides no evidence to support his claim that it was not a good purchase for HP. According to comments on the article, Opsware's product still exists and has simply been rebranded.

<p><pre><code> they’re primarily interested in buying into any company, no matter how flash-in-the-pan, where Andreessen Horowitz can exit its investment for a large multiple of whatever it bought in at. </code></pre> It's worth mentioning that this behavior isn't unique to Andreessen Horowitz.<p>This also makes me wonder if this type of attitude might be hurting the long term prospects of our economy.

You don't see something...Ponzi-scheme-ish about the industry? I may not be especially familiar with this, but it <i>sounds</i> like:<p>1. Man makes short-lived company that makes him rich quickly. 2. Man makes money investing in other short-lived companies that make their founders rich quickly. 3. Successful founders grow up to make money investing in still other short-lived companies.<p>Maybe I'm totally misinterpreting this, but if there's any truth to this version of the story, it seems like it's heading for disaster. I've already met a lot of startup founders who insist that profitability doesn't matter. How on earth is that attitude sustainable?

I think the problem is with publications like Wired and Fast Company. They tend to gush and over exaggerate the achievements of their subjects while glossing over real problems. Everything is 'world changing', 'revolutionary' and 'disruptive'.<p>Fast Company is the worst offender. They rarely critically analyse anything.

As long as we're being accurate:<p>&#62; His single greatest achievement — the creation of the world’s first web browser, Mosaic — took place under the auspices of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois.<p>All correct, except for "first". The world's first web browser was WorldWideWeb[1], written by Tim Berners-Lee. But I suppose it is true that Mosaic was the first browser that got noticed by anyone other than the Chosen Few.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldWideWeb" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldWideWeb</a>

I'm seeing something very similar happening in SV as happened in Wallstreet prior to when the big mess began in 2008: the media generated cult of personality for people who make money, not successful lasting companies.

The problem with Andreeson is he doesn't aim to build anything that is built to last.<p>Having his creations be acquired for substantial sums by nervous corporations (who proceed to let them die) serves no one but Andreeson himself and his investors.<p>As a consumer, I value programs like netpbm, feh, ffmpeg and mplayer far more than Netscape and all the monolithic browser crap that has followed. I can rely on the former programs year after year.<p>By contrast, Andreeson offers little to consumers. His best programmer at Netscape was put out of job and now runs a nightclub. I think that says it all. Andreeson is not improving the world of software and technology. He has no intention of building things that last. He's in it to make a quick buck. Quality and consumers be damned.

IF you apply the high standards that the author is applying to andreesen than there may not be more than a handful of entrepreneurs who meet that criteria. When apple eventually loses its luster 20 yrs from now, you could write an article saying what did Steve jobs achieve? It's the most idiotic article I have read about a person who started 3 really great companies.

Marc.

Marc kicked off an information sharing revolution the likes of which humanity has never seen prior. Even if someone had come along a year later and made a browser the masses could use, that's still tantamount to a civilizational change delayed a <i>year</i>. Felix the Hater should reconsider.

Page view journalism. "Hmm...that article on how AH should have made more from the Instagram deal blew up. What other negative angle can I take on these guys while their 'hot' to juice some page views?"

Anyone know what the p in pmarca stands for?