Funny, I assumed Larry = Ellison, not Page. Either way, can't believe Zuckerberg is being compared to those guys... Let's at least wait until Facebook IPO's or makes a billion dollars.
He made a tool that a million billion people are using, and he managed to go up against a behemoth of a competitor and still win. Facebook is a vast success, regardless of its profits, because nearly everybody in its intended demographic uses it, and most people NOT in that demographic are starting to.
It's hard to find a lot of respect for someone who steals his employer's idea and makes billions off it. I mean, I guess that's OK in this "money is everything" society ("he's rich!!11!"), but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Doesn't everyone think execution is more important than idea alone? Even he stole the idea, but after he unveiled his site, he definitely could not steal the idea from connectU any more. So if founders of ConnectU really competed their service against Facebook with a better product, will Facebook be like today? I guess most likely they were just sat and waited and maybe did not treat it seriously until it was too late.
And we see ConnectU's founders are much better in enjoy life outside their startup.
Because no one is really competing with Twitter on the exact same product category at the moment. Pownce and Friendfeed are different to Twitter.
I think the idea of traction is very dangerous. It gives an excuse for losing competitors to sooth their fragile hearts. But if you believe market is efficient and ruthless and if you agree that users vote with their browsers in Web 2.0 world, then the failure of the competitors should be attributed more to failing to give what users want than the winner has more traction!
Case in point? Google Search vs. Hotbot Search vs. Alta Vista Search vs. Windows Live Search and Yahoo! Search in U.S.
I am still in doubt that we just use "brand" and "habits" to cover the core questions in our thinking.
In the case of Ebay, what a buyer and a seller wants in common is there is a large pools of users in the site. So they have better chance to find the other end of the transaction. So even though currently eBay can't satisfy its users in different aspects, but they have the most important element in auction: a lot of users. This is the same for dating sites.
So to build a new competitor against eBay, the most important thing is to figure out how to convert users in eBay to the new competitors. I guess anyone who figure this out will reap the reward.
I just think we use "brand" and "habits" too much without reallying understanding the reality. A successful product or service must satisfy a demand. Even in soft drink market, where there is no difference between them. But each one uses a "brand image" to resort to different customers' psychology. So the product actually fulfill the need of consumers' desire to define themselves. From this point of view, they create a product that is what people want.
I've seen ConnectU. If it launched and Facebook didn't, MySpace would still be number one. Zuckerberg may or may not have stolen an idea, but don't think that the idea alone is what makes Facebook great.
This is stupid and that case is a sad joke. I don't see how the idea could have been stolen since Friendster, Myspace and probably some others existed before FB.
Even so the case is a joke. He stole the code he wrote himself? I think allegedly he didn't honor a verbal agreement to write a site for the connectU founders, that is very different from someone "stealing the code" and it's silly to even consider FB's success and CU's lack there of is due to the fact that they launched a month or two earlier.
In any case, I was responding to jrockway's comment
"someone who steals his employer's idea and makes billions off it".
Nice article, but I would like to add couple of more things.
a) Socio-economic structure in that part of the world is complex. You graduate straight out of school and you start thinking about your parents (in most cases Dad is near retirement) and siblings (if you've sisters you've to get them married--i.e. bear all expenses).
b) Most people who make it to the top don't give back to the society in terms of donation to schools. Most people don't take initiatives that will give young kids, straight out of school, an incentive to start a company.
c) Sparse number of highly talented engineers available for mentorship. Most talented people will tell you to focus on your grades, as article noted.
d) Government not providing any incentives to young lads to start businesses. Cost of running a business is usually pretty high. No policy making at that level. No subsidies.
e) No academic or professional activities. There are no meetups and it's very rare that you hear about a conference. Not many places to meet up like-minded people (only exception is the school itself)
f) Lack of libraries. Elite usually love to read Malcolm Gladwell to remain in the Groove. Rare are the people(that I'm aware of) who like to keep abreast of latest trends. Though situation is improving but you won't find many modern classics (engineering or otherwise) in biggest library of your town). Heavy taxes on imported books. A fellow Pakistani once told me he had to pay heavy taxes(one third of the price of the books) on 10 books that he ordered for his personal use.
This is what I've heard and I've also worked in that part of the world(i.e. Pakistan) but I'm not really sure about India.
Well, other points still hold to some degree. Just consider the political instability most countries around India are going through right now. That is not a decent sight. India is still lucky in that lots of high profile companies have offices there but it's yet to happen in Pakistan. There are very few, if any. Microsoft has presence in Pakistan but it's mostly dealing with Government contracts and selling to Enterprise. No development offices of Yahoo, Microsoft, Google and alike. Overall, situation is more complex than one could imagine.
The obsession with 'degrees' (and less risk taking in general) is an unfortunate byproduct of a highly controlled and regulated economy till 1991. Setting up a business, and earning a decent living for yourself (and your extended family most of the times) was extremely difficult before that time. Doing a 'white collar' job was the safest and the most feasible option and the road to that passed through a person being 'educated' (read have a degree). Hence the strong focus on getting a degree, as it was the way to earn your bread.(literally)
Thankfully, things changed from 1991 onwards, from what we call here as 'economic liberalization' (loosening of government controls and restrictions). Add to that more exposure/integration with the 'west' through media/internet and now the attitudes towards business/learning/other activities are changing.
The change will take time, and it's just my guess that the next generation that really doesn't have to worry about the basic issues of life as much would be far more risk taking, and would be doing more game changing things, relative to what's being done today.
I remember one of PG's essay where he mentioned his reasons of why some of the other places cannot replicate a 'Silicon Valley'. If i remember correctly, his take on Bangalore/India was that inherently since the country is still poor, it would be very difficult for it replicate the valley culture at this point at least. (He used an example of uneven steps on a railway station in that essay). His reasoning is not wide off the mark.
But as i said, we are very optimistic, things are gonna get way better, way sooner.
It is 40x harder to get into IIT than it is MIT, and they've still not sorted their caste system. I can't understand why there isn't more outrage about that in the West; it's worse than Apartheid ever was.
The trouble is that it is too sorted. :-). But on a serious note, economic development on the whole can help a long way in removing social evils as well. Some things might appear simple and logical to improve, but it ain't easy given the 'diversity' (and number!) of people in our country.
For academic jobs, 7 page resumes for entry level positions are not uncommon. They have stuff like this:
Prizes:
1. Best (and only) dissertation, 2005
...
12. 6'th grade spelling bee champion
Employment:
Teaching Assistant, Hicksville College
Assisted in the teaching of a variety of courses, including Calculus 1, Calculus 2, Calculus 3, Differential Equations, Discrete Math and Precalculus. My teaching style reflects my commitment to diversity, technology in the classroom, helping my slowest students succeed and making sure the strongest are challenged. In addition to teaching, I held office hours to assist students in learning material they had not mastered in class. Additionally, I graded homework and exams and tracked the grades using Microsoft Excel. I was also responsible for writing Excel macros to add up the grades.
Instructor, Hicksville College
...
(Note: that part about excel macros isn't an exaggeration.)
There are already hugely influential Indian businessmen, but they are not in IT. Consider Mittal, a very large steel company. However there is a cultural component to success in software or Internet services - the best thing you could do to encourage Indian success would be to get more Indians connected to broadband.
Duplicating other conditions would be key. Universities that encourage professors to be involved with industry, like Stanford, would help tremendously.
Also, doing an end-run around broadband might be an even better strategy. How about distributing OpenMoko sets and programming environments?
Another thing to look at -- see what the US is doing wrong and give India an advantage by not duplicating those mistakes.
Isn't the value what a steel company produces already laying inside of the ground? Making money off of natural resources seems to require connections in government more so than it does skill or innovation.
Not really - Mittal's skill has been in buying up loss making mills and turning them around. Their core skill is in training people to operate existing mills more efficiently.
Secondly, you don't know much about steel. For a start it is not "already laying inside the ground" (go on, find me a "steel mine" somewhere). It's not one thing either; there are countless alloys, and every customer wants something slightly different. Steel is a manufacturing business like any other. You might as well say the products of a bakery are just growing in a field somewhere.
You have no idea how tough it is to run a steel mill. I've been to many mills to observe their operations and different mills have different operation styles (I've been to one of Mittal Group's mills and their operation is the most minimalist). You definitely need skill in order to run the factory efficiently.
Especially at this current period when steel prices are plummeting faster than prices of raw materials are.
Managing a steel mill is not for the faint-hearted. It's nothing like running a tech company.
There are several hugely successful Indian entrepreneurs: Lakshmi Mittal, Sunil Mittal (no relation), Dhirubhai Ambani. Even in IT, there is Azim Premji & Narayana Murthy. But the entrepreneurial culture is still not there - all of these people bucked significant cultural norms.
I had dinner with Sunil Mittal once last year, and he had a constant stream of stories about how the Indian government regulations are so restrictive for aspiring entrepreneurs. Apparently you couldn't import touchtone phones at one point, so he had to have them disassembled & shipped separately to different places just so he could sell them in India. Indian trade policy has gotten better, but there's still room to improve.
It seems as though if they could just mitigate government interference they could easily surpass China economically. Why don't the elected officials realize that?
I think the single biggest factor is fear of failure. And it's mostly because of society (but other factors too). If you start something in India and fail, you are forever termed as a failure. No one moves on - anywhere you go, your failure follows you. The stigma is unbearable to live with.
Given this scenario, getting a 'safe' job and earn money working for someone else is the better option for most.
