[repos]

Some of the points are valid, but you shouldn't generalize the situation. Very few people in the 90's woke up with the idea that they needed to be connected with someone on the other side of the world. But they eventually realized they did when they were shown the internet.

Yeah sometimes you don't need to be "disruptive", but sometimes you do. And it's especially hard to realize which is appropriate when you are building for a profit, a bit easier when you are building for change.

[spullara]

His point is that the ones that made the disruptive change like Netscape are not necessarily the ones that made the most money for the least effort. The people that saw the trend and momentum and went with it had an easier time and made more money more efficiently then the ones that actually changed the world. So even though there are counter examples you can't say they had an easy time of it or took the simplest path to success.

All that said, I don't find the kinds of startups he is encouraging as interesting.

[michokest]

Great example at Netscape! That was exactly my point. Major disruptions have already been started by others, and it's easier to ride that wave than starting a new one.