While I think Andreesen has some interesting things to say, Matt Wulfeck has a valid criticism. These are people who have been around when lightning struck but now they think they make the rain.

Don't forget, Andreesen has had his share of spectacular failures too. He just had more resources to bet with going forward from them.

Anyone other than me find it funny that Mark not only talks to a very small circle of people for "validity" of his ideas, he's proud to have figured out how to avoid even that in this article?