Hacker News Reader

Comment by choxi | Hacker News Reader

A lot of the famous dot com busts were basically just ahead of their time: https://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/technology/1003/gallery...

To me these all sound like predecessors to Facebook, Amazon, and Uber

View on HN

I would say that a primary difference is the investment runway the successful players have enjoyed. Some of them are still not objectively profitable to this day, but their massive topline revenues, scales of operations, and levels of name recognition makes many of them remain attractive investment targets nevertheless.

Indeed. The willingness of VCs to fund a big vision is a game changer from companies having to incrementally bootstrap themselves.

> I would say that a primary difference is the investment runway the successful players have enjoyed.

No. The market size expanded exponentially for each of these opportunities - changing the economics of the business models and making them viable at scale.

The internet was nothing in the 90s. A place for mostly nerds in first world countries.

Today we've connect 4 billion+ humans around the world.

For better or for worse. When you say "connect", that means get them in front of a couple of hundred platforms (globally, comes down to couple dozen in the west) to transact on and generate revenue for those market players. It's like we took the 32bit color animated GIF internet and made it a 128 color static PNG of mostly similar shades of 10 colors.

I don't think the implications of connecting 4B+ people should be downplayed.

It is an absolutely massive accomplishment that has many many far reaching positive effects that far outweigh the negatives.

Don't let cynicism be your only guide.

> No. The market size expanded exponentially for each of these opportunities - changing the economics of the business models and making them viable at scale.

Maybe. Labor in China and the Chinese market absorbing inflation also helped.

My expectation is grocery delivery just barely missed the boat, because of import malfeasance crackdowns since April that is affecting everything.

> primary difference is the investment runway the successful players have enjoyed

Mobile phones and data didn’t hurt.

One of the biggest differences is no mobile in 1.0

Actually it reinforces that the idea actually is the easiest part of the equation. Execution is the key and the winners are the ones who executed the best. You can't compare Webvan to Amazon.

You can't compare Webvan to Amazon.

Amazon ended up owning and operating Webvan.com.[1] The people who developed Webvan went on to develop Amazon Fresh.[2] The founder of Kiva Robotics, which was acquired by Amazon, was from Webvan. Amazon's grocery business is directly descended from Webvan.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20160303194049/http://www.webvan...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/net-us-amazon-webvan-idUSBRE...

Yes, it was a descendent. Instacart is a descendent of Webvan too. The idea is the same but Amazon already had preexisting technology and market dominance. You can't compare Webvan to Amazon.

That might be a factor, but given that they all failed at about the same time I think there's a good chance that timing is just as important. Adding billions of people to the internet and mass adoption of smartphones may have been necessary precursors to the success of Amazon/Facebook/Google/Uber.

They may have had similar ideas to those very successful companies, but besides the timing, lacked the talent at execution.

I remember in high school learning how to build little websites and thinking, “it sure would be cool if we could build a little online yearbook for our school! Everyone could have their own little profile page!”

Did you also think “l can then use their personal information to target ads and make $billions!” I wager you did not, because you’re probably not as depraved as some.

I'd tend to think "I could sell ads!", which can lead to that.

Doesn’t even feel like some of these were necessarily ahead of their time, almost like investors didn’t take as many risks as they do now with burn rate etc. of course, the dot com bubble burst in a bad way, so perhaps this theory isn’t very sound

Yes.

Also : internet wasn't this good. Wasn't this widespread. Did not have the minimum usage levels for such endeavours to pickup.

I greatly prefer Geocities to Facebook. ;-)

Webvan and Kozmo.com were also brilliant.

AskJeeves

I still want an internet butler.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com