Kind of feel like saying that HN didn't/did love those projects is a bit too black and white. Many of those submissions do have a lot of dismissive comments, but lots of them also have a lot of comments praising the project one or another way, explicitly or implicitly. Some of the highlighted comments also aren't even the top 3 comments, yet they're used as indicative of what the HN community loves or not.
But I guess that isn't as interesting to people today, nuance seems to be something people try to avoid, rather than seek out.
5 billion dollars will be the price of a Big Mac meal, after President Trump fourth mandate and the dollar collapse.
Historians now refer to 2029–2032 as The Great Trumparinflation. It began when President Trump, in a surprise move, appointed Kid Rock as Chair of the Federal Reserve because he "understands America and probably money too"
This is a valid observation. Capital breeds more capital and just like water seeks the lowest point capital will seek to enable those who are willing to bend or even break the rules. This is embodied in YC's application questionnaire in interesting ways, it is effectively capital testing for exactly those properties. I think 'ethical' should be made explicit in your list, and not lumped in with 'other'. Because that is one of the more important ones and it usually is also the first to be thrown out.
The funny thing is a lot of the criticism of Dropbox ended up being true. Dropbox wasn’t a massive money generator, and every tech company replicated it as a value add to their existing ecosystem rather than being much of a product itself.
If you take that page and apply one simple filter, that is which of these are actually profitable standalone businesses as of 2026, the list collapses fast. And only a small minority, Stripe, Airbnb, Dropbox, maybe Uber after 13 years...are slightly profitable. Many others were acquired early, remain VC subsidized, or are open source projects.
This list does not show HN is bad at predicting outcomes, it shows how strong survivorship bias can be, when only remembering the rare successes.
Remember the founders of Google, tried to sell their business for one 1 million dollars, even discounting at a point to 750k... and still had no takers...
Yeah, impossible to read this site. Let me place the content where i want. If your screen is big enough you can literally not scroll on this site because it just jumps to the next chapter.
This looks like an underhanded comment about Openclaw. Tbf. I might be exactly that kinda person the site is referring to, but I have a really hard time seeing this thing as any more than one of those blips on the radar that gets forgotten about quickly again, e.g. more clubhouse (remember that?) and less dropbox.
The entire site (including page margins) being a link to HN is an annoyance
edit: also, the autoscroll thing
The Tailwind CSS complaints aren't wrong even today; any time I want to apply a Stylus CSS to fix someone's janky site---particularly, weekly offers from area grocery stores, where I fix it once or twice and enjoy a much better UI for a year or two---and then all I see is class="rounded-lg shadow-primary-400 my-4 md:px-4 bg-white py-20 pt-8 dark:border-gray-600" for every single element... it gets me seriously aggravated! It's a hassle to modify and a hassle to parse. I imagine it's only convenient to write/maintain because you use a separate tool and compile it into the garbage it becomes.
> Dropbox: I think competitors can duplicate Dropbox’s nice front end
That’s exactly what happened.
> Bitcoin: “Well this is an exceptionally cute idea, but there is absolutely no way that anyone is going to have any faith in this currency.”
This is still true even now
> DDG: “I can’t ever see anyone saying ‘just duckduckgo it.’ The name just sounds silly. It makes me think it’s a search engine for toddlers.”
And I still think the name holds them back. I say to my friends “I googled…” or “I searched…” because DDG sounds ridiculous.
> DDG: “How many people would go to Google and search for ‘new search engine’? DuckDuckGo is not even in the top 10 pages.”
This is completely legitimate feedback. Not a criticism.
> Uber: Two months after this thread, Uber received an actual cease-and-desist from San Francisco — seemingly validating every skeptic. Travis Kalanick’s response was to ignore it and expand to five more cities.
So they’ve literally said that the comments were correct here and still published it anyway.
> AirBnB: “All my experiences with it as a user have been too unreliable to expect that it can scale to truly massive usability. I just don’t see it swallowing up the whole hotel industry.”
Which is completely correct.
> Stripe: “I really don’t get or see how Stripe is different? Why would I use it instead of PayPal, 2CheckOut, e-junkie, etc?”
That’s a question, and a valid one at that.
I gave up reading after that because of the obnoxious hijacking’s of the scrolling on mobile.
Back before Google was huge, no-one used any of the other popular search engine names as a synonym for 'searched the world wide web'. We didn't say "I Yahoo!'d for recipes", or "I Excited the latest film releases". We can go back.
The point isn’t that we can’t use generic adverbs. It’s that DDG’s name makes it unrealistic to use their brand as an adverb, which loses them more exposure.
This website makes the error of assuming that being criticized on HN automatically implies your idea is not marketable.
Every point about ChatGPT and Claude Code is true. Not only is their material value detached from reality (as tends to be the case in hype cycles), but a few of the criticisms, especially the first about ChatGPT are about the social impact and not how much money the idea can make.
It's a viewpoint issue: how you define success is what makes the difference here.
To someone that just made a few billion and who externalized the cost of that billion, say 100 billion onto society they are successful. From the point of view of society they just cost us all a fortune. But we don't judge the winners by social impact but by the size of their bankroll.
Looking at the list, I feel timing makes a big difference*. You need to be early enough that people think you are a bit crazy, but not too early that the tech isn't there or even early adopters are not ready.
Openclaw for example could have been built in 2023, but it did well in 2026. I don't think 2023 was ready for it :-)
* Modulo survivor bias, execution, funding, brilliant fouders, great advisors, pure luck etc.*
What a concise explanation of 'survivor bias'. Well done!
The problem is that every bad idea had someone behind it saying it was a great project, and the number of such bad ideas vastly outnumbers the actual success stories. To be fair, if the point is to say "Don't listen to the haters", that remains a good point.
The issue here is that the people commenting on whether something is a good or bad idea usually don't have the necessary insight to give useful comments either way. But with certain trendy topics, many people still feel the need to express their shallow opinions. That is especially true on HN, because many like-minded people will chime in, upvote and increase visibility as long as they themselves feel validated, irrespective of whether what was said is true or not.
In fact I'd love to see an inverse to this list. I.e. shit people celebrated here that failed miserably. Although failure as a business can have many reasons and must not necessarily be due to the core business idea. It's probably much harder to get this data than searching early HN threads for high value IPOs. You'd have to search for popular threads and then track down the companies and find out what happened eventually.
The bitcoin entry is off. jdoliner‘s criticism ended up being more true than false; it isn’t wildly trusted as a medium of exchange and it being an “asset class” doesn’t disprove that.
I really like the idea of this site, however I think it would be better if it was explained how these tools became popular and what problems they solved and/or what features they had.
Is a programming language really a "project", in that you get a tangible object at the end? I was thinking I'd see more actual products and services on the list. /shrug
What an infuriating website. I know complaining about bad websites is frowned upon, but they are actively making it hard to read and click through the links, yet that is the entire service. What is the point of keeping this online if a HN comment or a README offers a superior product? ;/
If you have enough comments on literally ANY project, you will be able to say Reddit didn't love it, or Twitter didn't love it, or Hackernews didn't love it.
By that metric, X didn't love any project either, neither did Reddit.
You could also just as easily say Reddit loved all these projects and Hackernews loved all these projects.
That is, you can cherry pick positive comments about OpenClaw just as easily as you can cherry pick negative comments. Guess what, that's just how people work.
Kind of feel like saying that HN didn't/did love those projects is a bit too black and white. Many of those submissions do have a lot of dismissive comments, but lots of them also have a lot of comments praising the project one or another way, explicitly or implicitly. Some of the highlighted comments also aren't even the top 3 comments, yet they're used as indicative of what the HN community loves or not.
But I guess that isn't as interesting to people today, nuance seems to be something people try to avoid, rather than seek out.
Pshar, this comment will be on hackernews.love in three years when hackernews.love has it's 10 billion dollar IPO
Well, at least nuance won a tiny battle if so, and I'm happy I could contribute to it.
Nuance!? This is The Internet, we can't be having any of that here.
5 billion dollars will be the price of a Big Mac meal, after President Trump fourth mandate and the dollar collapse.
Historians now refer to 2029–2032 as The Great Trumparinflation. It began when President Trump, in a surprise move, appointed Kid Rock as Chair of the Federal Reserve because he "understands America and probably money too"
My takeaway is that enough capital trumps all engineering, legal and other considerations.
Typescript is cool though. Not like cool cool, but definitely an improvement to plain Javascript.
This is a valid observation. Capital breeds more capital and just like water seeks the lowest point capital will seek to enable those who are willing to bend or even break the rules. This is embodied in YC's application questionnaire in interesting ways, it is effectively capital testing for exactly those properties. I think 'ethical' should be made explicit in your list, and not lumped in with 'other'. Because that is one of the more important ones and it usually is also the first to be thrown out.
Capital allows reaching a wider audience, experimenting with different angles and use cases, and addressing multiple pain points.
So yes, you're right.
The funny thing is a lot of the criticism of Dropbox ended up being true. Dropbox wasn’t a massive money generator, and every tech company replicated it as a value add to their existing ecosystem rather than being much of a product itself.
> Dropbox wasn’t a massive money generator
Depends on who you ask. I guess Drew, who posted it here, may beg to differ.
So does Adam Neumann...
If you take that page and apply one simple filter, that is which of these are actually profitable standalone businesses as of 2026, the list collapses fast. And only a small minority, Stripe, Airbnb, Dropbox, maybe Uber after 13 years...are slightly profitable. Many others were acquired early, remain VC subsidized, or are open source projects.
This list does not show HN is bad at predicting outcomes, it shows how strong survivorship bias can be, when only remembering the rare successes.
Remember the founders of Google, tried to sell their business for one 1 million dollars, even discounting at a point to 750k... and still had no takers...
Don't hijack scroll.
Yeah, impossible to read this site. Let me place the content where i want. If your screen is big enough you can literally not scroll on this site because it just jumps to the next chapter.
It's my own fault but my only mobile browser is webview and this site kept scrolling back to the top
This looks like an underhanded comment about Openclaw. Tbf. I might be exactly that kinda person the site is referring to, but I have a really hard time seeing this thing as any more than one of those blips on the radar that gets forgotten about quickly again, e.g. more clubhouse (remember that?) and less dropbox.
The entire site (including page margins) being a link to HN is an annoyance
edit: also, the autoscroll thing
The Tailwind CSS complaints aren't wrong even today; any time I want to apply a Stylus CSS to fix someone's janky site---particularly, weekly offers from area grocery stores, where I fix it once or twice and enjoy a much better UI for a year or two---and then all I see is class="rounded-lg shadow-primary-400 my-4 md:px-4 bg-white py-20 pt-8 dark:border-gray-600" for every single element... it gets me seriously aggravated! It's a hassle to modify and a hassle to parse. I imagine it's only convenient to write/maintain because you use a separate tool and compile it into the garbage it becomes.
Not just Tailwind; most of the listed criticism are still valid and relevant, even after those products had success.
Thank you. HN delivers.
Some of those comments are completely fair:
> Dropbox: I think competitors can duplicate Dropbox’s nice front end
That’s exactly what happened.
> Bitcoin: “Well this is an exceptionally cute idea, but there is absolutely no way that anyone is going to have any faith in this currency.”
This is still true even now
> DDG: “I can’t ever see anyone saying ‘just duckduckgo it.’ The name just sounds silly. It makes me think it’s a search engine for toddlers.”
And I still think the name holds them back. I say to my friends “I googled…” or “I searched…” because DDG sounds ridiculous.
> DDG: “How many people would go to Google and search for ‘new search engine’? DuckDuckGo is not even in the top 10 pages.”
This is completely legitimate feedback. Not a criticism.
> Uber: Two months after this thread, Uber received an actual cease-and-desist from San Francisco — seemingly validating every skeptic. Travis Kalanick’s response was to ignore it and expand to five more cities.
So they’ve literally said that the comments were correct here and still published it anyway.
> AirBnB: “All my experiences with it as a user have been too unreliable to expect that it can scale to truly massive usability. I just don’t see it swallowing up the whole hotel industry.”
Which is completely correct.
> Stripe: “I really don’t get or see how Stripe is different? Why would I use it instead of PayPal, 2CheckOut, e-junkie, etc?”
That’s a question, and a valid one at that.
I gave up reading after that because of the obnoxious hijacking’s of the scrolling on mobile.
Back before Google was huge, no-one used any of the other popular search engine names as a synonym for 'searched the world wide web'. We didn't say "I Yahoo!'d for recipes", or "I Excited the latest film releases". We can go back.
The point isn’t that we can’t use generic adverbs. It’s that DDG’s name makes it unrealistic to use their brand as an adverb, which loses them more exposure.
So you're saying we are returning to normalcy without adding a corporate term to our every day language?
"I searched the net and found..“
This website makes the error of assuming that being criticized on HN automatically implies your idea is not marketable.
Every point about ChatGPT and Claude Code is true. Not only is their material value detached from reality (as tends to be the case in hype cycles), but a few of the criticisms, especially the first about ChatGPT are about the social impact and not how much money the idea can make.
Feels dishonest to me.
It's a viewpoint issue: how you define success is what makes the difference here.
To someone that just made a few billion and who externalized the cost of that billion, say 100 billion onto society they are successful. From the point of view of society they just cost us all a fortune. But we don't judge the winners by social impact but by the size of their bankroll.
Not everyone shares this view. Some have a different definition of winners and losers.
Yes, that's what I said.
Looking at the list, I feel timing makes a big difference*. You need to be early enough that people think you are a bit crazy, but not too early that the tech isn't there or even early adopters are not ready.
Openclaw for example could have been built in 2023, but it did well in 2026. I don't think 2023 was ready for it :-)
* Modulo survivor bias, execution, funding, brilliant fouders, great advisors, pure luck etc.*
> Every great project was once called a bad idea
What a concise explanation of 'survivor bias'. Well done!
The problem is that every bad idea had someone behind it saying it was a great project, and the number of such bad ideas vastly outnumbers the actual success stories. To be fair, if the point is to say "Don't listen to the haters", that remains a good point.
The issue here is that the people commenting on whether something is a good or bad idea usually don't have the necessary insight to give useful comments either way. But with certain trendy topics, many people still feel the need to express their shallow opinions. That is especially true on HN, because many like-minded people will chime in, upvote and increase visibility as long as they themselves feel validated, irrespective of whether what was said is true or not.
In fact I'd love to see an inverse to this list. I.e. shit people celebrated here that failed miserably. Although failure as a business can have many reasons and must not necessarily be due to the core business idea. It's probably much harder to get this data than searching early HN threads for high value IPOs. You'd have to search for popular threads and then track down the companies and find out what happened eventually.
I can't say that I disagree with the React comments...
The bitcoin entry is off. jdoliner‘s criticism ended up being more true than false; it isn’t wildly trusted as a medium of exchange and it being an “asset class” doesn’t disprove that.
If the author can read this, no mention of Bun being bought out by Anthropic, which is a big win for the project. ;)
https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-acquires-bun-as-cla...
I really like the idea of this site, however I think it would be better if it was explained how these tools became popular and what problems they solved and/or what features they had.
Re: OpenClaw in particular, I had never realised that simply getting lots of stars on Github meant that your project was actually a success...
Got the guy hired by openai trough
Is a programming language really a "project", in that you get a tangible object at the end? I was thinking I'd see more actual products and services on the list. /shrug
Does the author not know the difference between Git and GitHub?
This site is blocked by Cisco Corporate Security, so can't read it. I wonder why.
Duckduckgo is begging the question that their name didn't hold them back. 600m is nothing really in that market. I still feel daft saying their name
Doesn't feel any more daft to me than saying nonsense words like "Google" or "Spotify".
If anything, the problem with their name is it's too long.
What an infuriating website. I know complaining about bad websites is frowned upon, but they are actively making it hard to read and click through the links, yet that is the entire service. What is the point of keeping this online if a HN comment or a README offers a superior product? ;/
Just about every summary in here has an em dash in it. The whole article feels very AI-y to me.
Love the mobile UX. You nailed the scrolling experience
A clear "survival's bias": no one knows/talks about the thousands who died.
Many projects on that page are rubbish and have made the world a little worse.
At a glance, most of them remain bad ideas.
If you have enough comments on literally ANY project, you will be able to say Reddit didn't love it, or Twitter didn't love it, or Hackernews didn't love it.
By that metric, X didn't love any project either, neither did Reddit.
You could also just as easily say Reddit loved all these projects and Hackernews loved all these projects.
That is, you can cherry pick positive comments about OpenClaw just as easily as you can cherry pick negative comments. Guess what, that's just how people work.
All comments about React are still valid
I still hate 15 out of these 22 things for the company owning them, the UX or base promise, or the tech itself.
BrandonM is never going to live down that very fedora-wearing comment in regards to Dropbox...
I "don't love" this. Seems very low effort and lacking any basic nuance.
The scroll feels like reading a book on the wind.
i have a few qualms with this app...
Meh, I still hate at least half of those products/companies...
Try to talk about noscript/basic (x)html browser interoperability on HN, namely the web without the engines from the whatng cartel.
You'll see...
well, that was awkward. that said, some I didn't love some I absolutely did. Is this fair?