Lots to say about this, as always. Curious to hear first reactions.

My winner was Meeker's point onstage about her five-year-old niece playing with apps when she would have been playing with chalkboards. Unfathomable how much that is going to affect kids' expectations about entertainment, learning, etc.

"Should" have been playing with chalkboards? How often do you connect with someone in a meaningful way, learn something profound about the world, build a business, or get moved emotionally by an artwork when you're at a chalkboard? For me, I have *all* of those experiences on my digital devices, so that's exactly where her niece should be spending her time.

While I have no quibble with the tech-focused parts of Meeker's presentation, I have long been frustrated by Meeker's (and KPCB's) framing of "USA, Inc.". If we're going to measure government by the standards of business, then let's do the reciprocal as well: How good a job is private industry doing of defending our borders? How many companies are creating free, high-quality, high-speed publicly-accessible highways for us to travel around the country? Can any company ensure a level playing field for use of our shared spectrum, upon which so much of our economy depends?

Meeker's discussion of government function is irresponsible.

Yep. No quibbles with her niece's app usage. I said Mary *would have* — as in, at her niece's age — been playing with chalkboards because apps weren't around yet. The time for normative statements about kids' obsession with apps has come and gone...

On her calling non-defense discretionary "entitlements," I understand the criticism, but that framework (analyzing governments as businesses with income statements, customers, etc.) isn't new or unique to USA Inc. Not sure it's helpful to pin the entirety of this criticism on her — it's provocative by design, but it's that way to focus what's often a meandering discussion about the priorities/implications of government spending.