These articles are poorly written, and the content is not only wrong, it is self contradictory. Paul Graham was right in suggesting that these articles are trolls. Sadly, I think it is a case where the author of the troll is sincere.
The author describes three traits of businesses that will fail during a downturn: based on ad-based revenues, being fun or recreational, and being innovative. Earlier in the article he says: "Back when the sector was hit hard in 2000, there were companies that managed to survive and grow."
It is interesting to note that one of those companies that managed to survive and grow during the last downturn was ad-based, innovative, and also could be considered "fun" and "recreational." Google, anyone?
I think though that it's important to pay attention to what I'm actually saying and not react purely on emotion. Having an emotional response might get me labeled as a troll, but it also shows from the fact that pg, and now you, are insinuating a point and then arguing that, instead of actually countering what I'm directly saying.
For example:
>The author describes three traits of businesses that will fail during a downturn
Actually, I don't say that anywhere. What I do say is: "When you're adjusting to survive, be sure to stay well clear of the following traps below". All three of those items are risky positions to place oneself in, and they become doubly so when money isn't flowing as fast as it is now.
I don't see how pointing out risks is contradicts the fact that you can be successful in mitigating those risks.
>Google, anyone?
Google is an anomaly. It's very bad strategy to formulate expectations based on the performance of an exception to the rule. Unless you are that one company, odds are you'll end up in the heap of has beens.
Besides, I point out in the article that Google did in fact innovate right through a recession to great effect.
The author describes three traits of businesses that will fail during a downturn: based on ad-based revenues, being fun or recreational, and being innovative. Earlier in the article he says: "Back when the sector was hit hard in 2000, there were companies that managed to survive and grow."
It is interesting to note that one of those companies that managed to survive and grow during the last downturn was ad-based, innovative, and also could be considered "fun" and "recreational." Google, anyone?