"... saturated, bloated, overstuffed with apps, platforms, devices, and more than enough content ..."
The article has a nice positive message, but it needs to be tempered with experience that railroads didn't go on being formed and expand forever in the 1890s, nor did car companies around 1910. Starting Tesla might be a good idea, but don't forget Delorean and Yugo, and 80s home computers, and early 80s video games.
I'm not claiming the opposite negative view is correct (unlike the article's claim about that the positive view is correct). The negative view is worth considering. Also among readers who know about the above argument, some acknowledgement that the opposition exists might make the article more persuasive.
You make a good point, but I think it's clear that the Internet and HTTP will be here to stay for a long time. It's just a matter of creating something that adds real value.
Correct. Note: US centric dates: My point being that starting up a railroad in 1850 was a great idea, not so good by 1900.
Or there were about 150 startup automobile mfgrs around 1900, not quite so many by 1925.
Starting up a telephone company in 1900, good idea, in 1950, not so good idea.
We still have railroads and car mfgrs and telcos in 2014, they're just not realistic startup fields.
Every other field of recent human activity has gone thru the same stages of startup success, startup failures/consolidations, oligopoly oscillating with semi-regulated public utility, sometimes a long term decline in the industry after that.
Someday its economically inevitable that "Internet and HTTP" will not be the place to do startups. I don't think its today, but my grand kids are highly unlikely to be doing internet startups.
The article has a nice positive message, but it needs to be tempered with experience that railroads didn't go on being formed and expand forever in the 1890s, nor did car companies around 1910. Starting Tesla might be a good idea, but don't forget Delorean and Yugo, and 80s home computers, and early 80s video games.
I'm not claiming the opposite negative view is correct (unlike the article's claim about that the positive view is correct). The negative view is worth considering. Also among readers who know about the above argument, some acknowledgement that the opposition exists might make the article more persuasive.