DISQUS

C'mon Charlie, it's like you expect to deal with service providers who really care about you! You are so demanding ;-)

Matt,
Part of this too, comes from false comparisons. People are hyped online, and portrayed inaccurately. People who sit on panels are less likely to be experts, and more likely to be friends of the conference organizer, or of some other panelist. People with blogs that seem powerful and influential may not really be that widely read, or that financially lucrative. False online presences only make the problem of comparison that much worse for us all.

Fred,
I think you need to factor in the one scarce good that still exists - attention. Being part of the conversation, links, authority, page rank... those are all things that are not absolute. They are relative. They are based on what everyone else is doing and how you relate to them. Ubiquity requires more labor, because now journalists have to blog and comment and all that in addition to research and writing. So what you have is an explosion in content, a steady attention level, and online advertising that, truth be told, is probably not worth what people are paying. I don't see how that is a model for long-term success, unless an advertising technology comes along that makes online advertising dramatically more engaging (better behavioral targeting, perhaps?)

I think people will begin to pay for more online content in order to filter through the noise. Paid content has failed for most web companies because their brands are perceived differently than the WSJ. People pay for bottled water, even though tap water is free.

And if I'm wrong, and content all remains free, isn't it possible that content grows faster than ad dollars and attention, and that everyone ends up with lousy returns on content creation as a result?

Hyperlocal will work when sites create content, not just aggregate it. Each hyperlocal site needs a real local presence - in the form of professional editors. It has to have a real local look and feel and attitude, not a web 2.0 attitude, because in order to monetize it you have to reach a critical mass. To reach that mass, you need more than just heavy web users to use it - you need the average person to embrace it.

That's why I find Path101 more interesting for employers than potential employees - it can present more multidimensional picture of someone than a resume ever could.

Although I'm not sure first impressions don't matter... I keep thinking back to the first impression you made on Emily Chang.

Fundamentally this is an optimization problem for entrepreneurs. If opportunity comes from breadth but skill comes from depth, entrepreneurs must balance the two in ways that achieve their goals. The interesting thing about depth though, is that it can lead to efficiency. Focus in a specific area can lead to more efficient information acquisition and decision making in that area over the long term, leaving more time for breadth and exposure to new opportunities.

Charlie,
You're exactly right. And it's not a big deal to start tapping that stuff. My first business took me from zero life debt to no paycheck, to 50K in credit card debt. I got a job and dug back out. People think entrepreneurs are risk takers, but I think entrepreneurs are really just risk managers.

Ben,
I went through a spell with a business idea that several people didn't like, until a friend pointed out that I should primarily care what "the people who mattered" thought. That's why I stopped asking friends and family about ideas (unless of course they were part of the target market).

Rob

Isabel,
Re: microchunking, I agree that crowds can sometimes do cool stuff, but what's cool and what's profitable are two very different things. Most web2.0 companies are doing something cool, but only a small percentage are going to be able to effectively monetize their offerings.

The biggest problem with crowds is that crowds need an incentive to take the project seriously. Whether or not to buy a stock has much more serious consequences than whether or not to vote for a story on Digg. That's why the former decision is taken more seriously than the latter, and why WoC works for markets better than for news aggregators.

Anyway, I love the idea of a private entrepreneur exchange. It allows entrepreneurs to diversify and spread some risk around. As a side result, I think you would find that the cross ownership aspects would encourage entrepreneurs to help each other by sharing ideas, contacts, etc, which could in turn improve the likelihood of success.

There would probably be several conditions that would need to be imposed - one of which would be a limitation on #of "shareholders" in order to bypass accredited investor SEC regulations. The other would be a requirement of maximum disclosure - biz plans, resumes, financial status, etc. so that entrepreneurs could value the companies accurately when they trade equity. I would be more than happy to give up 5% of my startup for to get a couple of collective percentage points in other ones.

Matt,
I don't know what most entrepreneurs think, but for me, the 7-8% is not an issue of control. It's nearly impossible to take on decent amounts of investment capital without giving up control. I see it as a valuation issue. The longer you can wait to take VC money, the higher the value of your company at that time, and thus the larger stake you get for a given level of investment.

Your comment about boostrapped vs. VC-backed stakes is an interesting one, and I bet the data is a pretty funky curve with some surprising discontinuities. Now if only someone has that data to put on Swivel...

Nice invite. I admit that when you sent me one, I just clicked accept without reading it.

Ben,
I think recent and near-term advances in short-term wireless functionality will allow you to set up a wireless home network by mid 2008 that will connect all of your devices to a home "backbone" regardless of the wireless technology each device uses. That will enable the stations that you mentioned. The thing I'm more excited about is the situation where you will have one cell phone sized computer that carries all your data. You put it down on your desk and it will wirelessly connect to your monitor, mouse, keyboard, and will sync with your wireless hard drive. Mobile technology is about to advance beyond the toddler stage.