Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...
Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...
Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
>400 subscribers
>400 subscribers
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Super detailed post by Bill Gurley about IPOs followed by a riff from Fred with more good reasons why could and should see more IPOs from Internet companies. So I am piling on with an IPO post as well, but one about how (at least some) Internet companies should be doing IPOs. And since yesterday I used 3.0 (with regard to photo sharing), I figured I’d throw in another version number today.
The 2.0 reference here is not gratuitous though. The term “Web 2.0” has gone out of vogue some time back and may never have been super useful, but for me it still connotes the idea of a web of people not just pages. That’s why I believe it relates to IPOs. IPOs are still 1.0 in that they are about numbers and dominated by a few very large underwriters and buyers on the demand side. Everywhere else the web has been pushing power out to the people, yet IPOs of those very web companies seem stuck in the old mold.
I very much hope that Google’s IPO will not be remembered as a failed experiment (money left on the table) but rather as a clear indication of what Internet companies with an avid user base can and should do: make sure that the people who love the site can buy in the IPO. I believe that services such as Skype and Twitter or marketplaces such as Etsy could do this successfully and in doing so align the interests of investors and the company much better than by simply selling to a bunch of institutional holders with no affinity for the company or its service. Once the first company does this, I believe many will follow. The question is who will have the courage to go first.
Super detailed post by Bill Gurley about IPOs followed by a riff from Fred with more good reasons why could and should see more IPOs from Internet companies. So I am piling on with an IPO post as well, but one about how (at least some) Internet companies should be doing IPOs. And since yesterday I used 3.0 (with regard to photo sharing), I figured I’d throw in another version number today.
The 2.0 reference here is not gratuitous though. The term “Web 2.0” has gone out of vogue some time back and may never have been super useful, but for me it still connotes the idea of a web of people not just pages. That’s why I believe it relates to IPOs. IPOs are still 1.0 in that they are about numbers and dominated by a few very large underwriters and buyers on the demand side. Everywhere else the web has been pushing power out to the people, yet IPOs of those very web companies seem stuck in the old mold.
I very much hope that Google’s IPO will not be remembered as a failed experiment (money left on the table) but rather as a clear indication of what Internet companies with an avid user base can and should do: make sure that the people who love the site can buy in the IPO. I believe that services such as Skype and Twitter or marketplaces such as Etsy could do this successfully and in doing so align the interests of investors and the company much better than by simply selling to a bunch of institutional holders with no affinity for the company or its service. Once the first company does this, I believe many will follow. The question is who will have the courage to go first.
No comments yet