Andreessen Interview Discusses Post-Crash Innovation

kevcol writes "The SF Chronicle has an interview with Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen, talking about innovation after the dot-bomb crash, how AOL doesn't understand its own customers, his reaction to some comments by Larry Ellison, who believes that 'innovation primarily comes from big companies like Oracle', and Andreessen's post-Netscape experience as head of OpsWare (formerly LoudCloud)."

Comments

Imposter Boy?

[Performer Guy]

Whe should anyone care what Andreesen says after the truth is out, read about it here:

http://www.chrispy.net/marca/gqarticle.html

or is he really the great Entrepreneur:

http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/alfred/290/andre esen.htm

It's true, for the most part

[ObviousGuy]

Large corporations are really the only places where you'd find enough capital to experiment with cutting edge technology. Some examples of these are Microsoft with MS Research, HP with HP Research, AT&T with Bell Labs, Xerox with PARC. These guys are doing what you want to be doing, driving the technology into the future.

While there have been significant gains in innovation that have come out of OSS, the movement largely remains a follower rather than leader of technology, choosing to re-implement already-existing technology for the sake of software freedom.

Small companies these days do not find it so easy to get financial backing for their ideas (which are usually cutting edge stuff), so the days of Yahoo!, Amazon, and other current mainstream companies who were once just gleams in their creators' eyes but grew to enormous proportions are long gone.

Re:It's true, for the most part

[Lumpy]

Are you crazy?

In the software world, a 13 year old in his basement with a old P-III 500 and linux has the same tools available to him as the entire microsfot corperation does.

The Basement/garage Electronics inventor Also has the abilities/tools available.. I can solder BGA chips to the home made 4 layer circuit boards I can make (have a board house do it for you for $100.00 is much easier though) A large number of chip makers gladly dole out single or a 3 pack of samples to small companies or hobbiests.

Right now the single person has the same capabilities available to them that the largest companies in the world do. Hell we have the "rock-star programmer" building a fricking rocket to launch himself into space.

you will see this trend accelerate as technology is advanced. I can print and bind a book in my home, I can manufacture my own electronic devices, i can write my own software and I can publish/sell it to millions of people easily.

Exactly

[Stone316]

They've made contributions to opensource as well as to the Linux platform. If it wasn't for Oracle, linux wouldn't even be a consideration for us at the moment.

While they are a 'big' company and some people distrust them based on that fact. Generally they adopt industry standards. Aren't they in our good books today? Or is that Wednesdays?

Re:Exactly

[GoofyBoy]

>having their software running on linux doesn't directly contribute to opensource software.

Its a huge thing. One of the biggest complaints of Linux is that it can't run stuff Windows does.

>how about open sourcing the admin tools?

At the heart of OpenSource is that you are not forced to do anything that you don't want to. Its "as is".

And who are you to say what Oracle should and shouldn't do? Who named you "King of OpenSource"?

Pot Calling Kettle

[Davak]

how AOL doesn't understand its own customers

I don't think most users wanted netscape to develop into the most buggy, bloated browser in the market!

I remember way back when netscape was actually great alternative to IE... all the geeks used it. Then they started trying to build the great palace of netscape on top of it... and it crumbled.

If they would have listened to their users, they would have stayed small... and probably done a lot better moneywise.

Now they are having to build a small browser from the beginnings up--after the money is gone.

Davak

Re:You know he is right

[rev_sanchez]

Immediate profit motive can be an unreliable impetus for real innovation. Instead of focusing on real quality and good engineering you're sometimes forced into tie-ins, FUD, and other similar schemes to get short term results. Sometimes large organizations can do a better job with this because they have recourses to invest in the long term work it takes to do it right. If there isn't any need to push quality forward because of market conditions then you just manipulate the market (advertising, FUD, differential pricing) to sell more. The key to innovation doesn't really appear to be size as much as competition and patience.