FB search as it is not capable to become kickass end-user-oriented product yet, it's more like a set of technologies that could be used by app developers to create cool dating\hiring\recommendation services and widgets using real-time api requests. The best apps will be acquired by Fb or just copied :)

Problem with MVP is the loss aversion bias + limited resources that entrepreneurs have - often 'lean' founders choose idea that is close to existing business process \ customer habits or investment trends (this decreases risk to lose) and then 'pivot' changing small things - one thing at a time trying to get the new service. It works well for theatretical improvisation and business improvements, but will not put product away from existing trends. For the same reason, Silicon Valley is sometimes too trendy and short-sighted. Many big ideas emerged outside of the Valley and then came here to 'pivot'

Cycling through colleagues and peripheral network is a very clever backdoor way to find people on LinkedIn. http://www.linkedinsights.com/10-common-mistakes-that-will-c...

Vagina rocks! This topic would never get so much attention if this would be 'Hacking my ... nose, knee, hand etc..'. Some star topics are easy to predict.

Nerds have their own weaknesses

This will have marginal impact on Fb revenue for 2 reasons:

1. What people share on Facebook <> what people really want to buy\consume\order

People are trying to look nice on Facebook. Facebook has to come up with some non-trivial statistics. What those guy who liked SF Giants and Obama is willing to buy. This requires 'Hunch-like' insights. And we know that Hunch business model was not a big success. Google's exercise is much easier, becuase Google knows what user's looking for, privacy of search request helps a lot. This could be fixed in only one way - through introduction of search engine within Facebook. Facebook could acquire Blekko or hire bunch of people from Google\Bing.

2. Site owners will get higher CPM with Google than Facebook. And will prefer using Google ads in most cases, not Facebook ad.

This will happen for the same reason as N1, Google has higher advertising relevancy and offered price than Facebook. Facebook will be sucessful at niche sites only - like Zynga, junk sites that are blocked by Google, etc. This could work for brand advertising, with pay-per-view model.

It does not matter if site already has any Fb services (likes, recommends, sharing)- Facebook callback could be easily added to any site together with advertisment module. It means that Facebook will deliver to ad module that ad that is most likely will be clicked according to site's user fb profile, likes, etc.

nobody is an expert?

very useful class from Staford CS, that is what Lean methodology is missing - How to build MVP

Because, it was overpriced. Too many people believed that this gonna be the first 1 Trillion company in market cap.

Problems started before launch of IPhone 5 when it became obvious that IPhone maps are not good - market did not like this Apple vs. Google war. Then there was not very successful launch Ipad mini - it was way too expensive to become killer-product. Apple fired few top managers becaus of this drawback - also not a good sign. Finally, Microsoft 'cope' Apple format for retail stores and launched Windows 8 with more revolutional design then Apple products have.

I was personally disappointed with absence of NFC chip in IPhone 5. Apple mossed good opportunity to enter NFC payments market, while Android is already there.

Apple is loosing their edge.

Kind of funny that every single thing you said is wrong.

Apple isn't overpriced according to its P/E. The market couldn't have cared less about maps. The iPad Mini looks like being a bigger success than even Apple predicted according to Morgan Stanley. Apple only fired one manager related to iOS and it was for more than just maps. Finally sales of Surface/Win8 have not met internal expectations according to many recent reports.

When Apple was at $700, it had the market cap of Google, Exxon Mobil, and Caterpillar combined.

In a hypothetical scenario, would you rather own all of Apple or all of Google, Exxon Mobil, and Caterpillar?

My point is, I'm not sure P/E means as much with such a ridiculously high market cap.

My perception is that this is zero sum game. For big companies like Apple their capitalization makret is driven mostly by institutional and megafunds money. Those guys are very inertial in their invetsment strategies, and their ammount of funds is stable. Decrease in Apple demand should mean that those guys realocated their funding to other IT companies, or moved money to another industry (this is less probable and takes more time).

YC became a very good brand that attracts best startups all over the world. I believe, you could make good make good portfolio from rejected companies. It could be good market for crowdfunding.

Problem is that not many investors have sellection skill and experience that YC or some other industry leaders have. That's why investors prefer to follow, 'lemming role' is safer and psychologically more comfortable. Difficult to fing reason to be the first investor in the pool.

What would help for everybody in ecosystem - more transparency in YCombinator selection process. Min Scoretable - team score, market score, product score, stage. Startups could opt-out from public scoretable while applying.

This will become point of reference for other investors and crowdfunding platforms and valuable feedback for entrepreneurs. YC as industry leader could bring this public good to the table.