"8/ we finally got rid of files. dropbox, google drive, soundcloud, spotify, netflix, hbogo, youtube, wattpad, kindle, and a host of other cloud based services finally killed off three letter filenames"
This is amazing and I guess I'll need to meditate over this fact (as I still like those files on my computer, feels as if I own them).
For now I'd still recommend holding on to your important stuff and considering the nature of the relationship between you and your cloud provider.
It's interesting to consider this observation in the context of young people who will grow up largely without the abstraction of local file storage at all. Anyone over 30 or so still feels slightly nervous or protective of their files, but that's only because we've internalized the analogy between stored data and physical stuff.
I suspect the abstraction of a local filesystem will become more and more quaint and give way to popular abstraction involving a remote, distributed filesystem of some sort.
Don't dropbox and google drive simply mirror files in the cloud? The other things eliminate files but I'm not sure what those two contribute to the file genocide.
I just clicked my Dropbox icon and what pops up is a list of files with extensions like .pdf, .txt. They don't seem terribly killed off. Wilson's observation seems to be more that people don't bother storing a lot of stuff like mp3s on their phones which is fair enough it you can stream your music adequately.
And that is awful, right? We got rid of files by the same way we could get rid of files 20 years ago: by not having them anymore, burning them, storing our information in other people's files.
We haven't gotten rid of files, we've just obfuscated their existence. Akin to putting a splash screen, or allegorically sticking our heads in the sand.
If we had actually devised an alternative to hierarchical file systems and moved to something like a persistent object store (as with Newton OS, PalmOS and some other platforms), that would have been impressive, though in the long term might not turn out well due to relative novelty and lack of battle testing to the idea.
In fact, trying to pretend files don't exist in an environment dominated by them is foolish.
I love hating on VCs as much as the other guy, but I must admit I'm envious of the ability of Fred Wilson (and VCs in general) to zoom out and see the bigger picture. I wonder if that's a skill that can be learned/taught.
It is a skill, and is often trained or realised by people in a leadership position: stop doing, start reflecting. Spend your working time reflecting about what's going around you (and the hope is, answers will flow). That doesn't mean meditating in your office, but making the time and having the freedom to think (and, sometimes, experiment, sometimes wildly).
This is harder to so in some environments, but often, the more one goes up a ladder of influence, the easier it becomes (self efficiency, delegation, understanding of employer or sponsor).
I have no idea regarding VCs, but in large companies a common formula is:
Managers: 10% of time for reflection
Managers of managers: 20-30% of time
Managers of managers of managers and further through the tree: 60% of time
This power of reflection increases clarity in decision, communication, and impact, whatever the field. Contrast this with the need to constantly fight fires with no time to think about the big picture.
Often, it doesn't work out this way. Lack of delegation, filling more than one role at the same time ('stretch goals' that really mean the organisation is under resourced), desire for immediate impact stop this from working.
A VC in particular has to optimize for this kind of thinking in order to get a better signal-to-noise ratio on his investments.
Think about how it's different from other kinds of investing. Warren Buffett looks for industries that are stable and picks good companies that operate in those industries. To do this well you need to know what makes an industry stable and what makes a company good. Examine enough of them, avoid trying to get rich quickly, build a system, and you can do well at it.
VC by definition operates in unstable industries and has to pick winners based both on having a good read of people so as to pick good founders, and having a good read of society so as to have an idea of which kind of ventures might succeed.
To do well investing you need to have a good deal of money, to earn this money you generally have to be successful, the act of creating that success later plays a role in helping you to understand what makes a good investment.
So, you start out, conquer an industry and make a bunch of money, then use that success to make even more money investing in other people. If you can do both of these things, then you can not put your foot in your mouth every third word when trying to predict the future. Maybe you can cut it down to every third paragraph.
yes, absolutely. when you do something every day for 25 years, you get good at. i could not do it one bit when i started out. it's a learned skill not something you are born with
Big picture thinking is not a skill. If you study any field of knowledge or industry you automatically get a big picture idea of what's going on. If you read a book you automatically get a big picture idea of the book. Anybody can do it, it's not talent, and it's not even learned, it's a basic human trait.
The only thing you can say about the author is that he's knowledgeable about the industry. His speculations on what happened in 2014 is a reflection of his knowledge, not skill.
Coding is a skill. If you just read a book on C++ without writing a line of code you gain a big picture understanding of C++, yet you lack the necessary skill to actually code. Like big picture thinking, anybody can learn a skill, but It takes far more time and discipline to actually gain a true skill then it does to see the big picture.
I'll say one thing though, understanding the big picture is often all you need to bullshit other people into thinking you have a certain skill.
I've always admired Fred's way of laying things out without any nonsense and seemingly quite transparently. I'm very keen to found out what he thinks 2015 will bring tomorrow (and anyone else in the know, really..)
People will only know what really happened in 2014 when it's 2017. It's too soon to say whether something is just a fad or an actual paradigm shifting trend.
I still have videos on Youtube I can't get off. This was after Google bought Youtube, and couldn't leave their medling hands(if it works--leave it alone?) off a good site. Yea, I changed accounts. Yea, I tried to do what others, and Youtube suggested, but there was an error somewhere; and I have Youtube videos I can't get to unless I comment on my video--which I disabled originally. One video got enough hits that Google put up advertising on it? I emailed Google
and the person emailed me back, "Check the Tips on the Youtube help board?"
Facebook is doing video very good and very quiet. We're getting more views on a native videpost in facebook with less likes than from youtube with more subscribers. Part of this is because of the auto-play in the newsfeed.
[+] [-] UweSchmidt|11 years ago|reply
This is amazing and I guess I'll need to meditate over this fact (as I still like those files on my computer, feels as if I own them).
For now I'd still recommend holding on to your important stuff and considering the nature of the relationship between you and your cloud provider.
[+] [-] jordanpg|11 years ago|reply
I suspect the abstraction of a local filesystem will become more and more quaint and give way to popular abstraction involving a remote, distributed filesystem of some sort.
[+] [-] forrestthewoods|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tim333|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcusgarvey|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fiatjaf|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] X-combinator|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vezzy-fnord|11 years ago|reply
If we had actually devised an alternative to hierarchical file systems and moved to something like a persistent object store (as with Newton OS, PalmOS and some other platforms), that would have been impressive, though in the long term might not turn out well due to relative novelty and lack of battle testing to the idea.
In fact, trying to pretend files don't exist in an environment dominated by them is foolish.
[+] [-] mjklin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonkostempski|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sysk|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zhte415|11 years ago|reply
This is harder to so in some environments, but often, the more one goes up a ladder of influence, the easier it becomes (self efficiency, delegation, understanding of employer or sponsor).
I have no idea regarding VCs, but in large companies a common formula is: Managers: 10% of time for reflection Managers of managers: 20-30% of time Managers of managers of managers and further through the tree: 60% of time
This power of reflection increases clarity in decision, communication, and impact, whatever the field. Contrast this with the need to constantly fight fires with no time to think about the big picture.
Often, it doesn't work out this way. Lack of delegation, filling more than one role at the same time ('stretch goals' that really mean the organisation is under resourced), desire for immediate impact stop this from working.
[+] [-] vinceguidry|11 years ago|reply
Think about how it's different from other kinds of investing. Warren Buffett looks for industries that are stable and picks good companies that operate in those industries. To do this well you need to know what makes an industry stable and what makes a company good. Examine enough of them, avoid trying to get rich quickly, build a system, and you can do well at it.
VC by definition operates in unstable industries and has to pick winners based both on having a good read of people so as to pick good founders, and having a good read of society so as to have an idea of which kind of ventures might succeed.
To do well investing you need to have a good deal of money, to earn this money you generally have to be successful, the act of creating that success later plays a role in helping you to understand what makes a good investment.
So, you start out, conquer an industry and make a bunch of money, then use that success to make even more money investing in other people. If you can do both of these things, then you can not put your foot in your mouth every third word when trying to predict the future. Maybe you can cut it down to every third paragraph.
[+] [-] fredwilson|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crimsonalucard|11 years ago|reply
The only thing you can say about the author is that he's knowledgeable about the industry. His speculations on what happened in 2014 is a reflection of his knowledge, not skill.
Coding is a skill. If you just read a book on C++ without writing a line of code you gain a big picture understanding of C++, yet you lack the necessary skill to actually code. Like big picture thinking, anybody can learn a skill, but It takes far more time and discipline to actually gain a true skill then it does to see the big picture.
I'll say one thing though, understanding the big picture is often all you need to bullshit other people into thinking you have a certain skill.
[+] [-] petercooper|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rubiquity|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crimsonalucard|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fredwilson|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jobu|11 years ago|reply
This seems so huge to me - maybe it's because I have kids and saw it happen firsthand over the course of this year.
[+] [-] marincounty|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cms07|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gbog|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cvander|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noobermin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schuman|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]