As a Brit who gave up cheerleading the European tech scene to make the pilgrimage to Silicon Valley to live, eat and breath the world’s leading hub for technology startup innovation, I’ve been largely unimpressed and disappointed by the quality of startups here.
Living in San Francisco since January, I’ve interviewed around two hundred startups and there’s only two, out of two hundred, I think are game changers. Now, don’t get me wrong, Silicon Valley is an incredibly inspiring place to be. Everyone is doing something amazing and trying to change the world, but in reality much of the technology being built here is not changing the world at all, it’s short-sighted and designed for scalability, big exits and big profits.
Groupon clone after Groupon clone, yawn… yet another social media dashboard, a cloud-based enterprise solution or, worse still, another photo sharing app; I’ve heard pitch after pitch of the same technology and keep wondering why all these highly intelligent, well educated youngsters, many of whom have been educated in the best universities in the world (Stanford, Yale and Harvard) are not putting their brains to good use by solving real-world problems. Instead they’re building technology to solve trivial issues – like apps that show where to spot your nearest tofu cupcake and share it with your friends.
I’ve come to the conclusion that entrepreneurship in the Valley has become productized, as organizations like Y Combinator attempt to marginalize, commoditize or manufacture a process that is inherently risky. The YC model of startups gaining $150,000 upon entering the accelerator program means investor Yuri Milner and the rest of the Start Fund venture capitalists’ get a nice stake in every company that goes through the program. The problem is that it’s all about the money; it creates emphasis on Y Combinator startups to quickly exit or IPO.
At a BBQ last week with a group of Y Combinator graduates, the conversation went predictably back and forth, sounding something like this: What batch were you in? How many times did you pivot? How much did you raise? From who? How many users have you got now? What’s your growth rate? Who’s going to acquire you? It’s never about the technology or impact it’s having, it’s about the game of entrepreneurship; getting users, funding and exiting as quickly as you can.
From an investor’s perspective, it’s a clever model; you put a group of extremely talented and hard working graduates together, give them seed funding, keep them lean and they pivot until they get you a hit and you make your return. But I wonder if the model is counter productive, producing risk averse entrepreneurs who, if they follow the right procedure, are almost guaranteed success in the form of a talent acquisition or exit. Should this be what entrepreneurship is about? What happened to irreverence, thinking outside the box, wanting to make a difference in the long run?
As much as I moan, Y Combinator is producing some game changers – Airbnb is one of them, not for what they are now but for founder Brian Chesky’s vision to become the eBay for traded goods. If it works it could put a halt on manufacturing new goods and put a stop to the raping of Earth’s limited resources.
Udemy is another favourite; they are democratizing education by cutting out the institution and helping people learn in a structured way that goes deeper than Googling a query, giving anyone with a smartphone access to a Stanford level of education.
But for every Airbnb and Udemy there are always more Netflix, Evernote and Spotify clones.
VC Brian Singerman, Principal at Founders Fund, confirmed my thoughts about the gold-rush mentality. ‘Many entrepreneurs are in it for the wrong reasons, they should be more focused on doing something big and good for the world and figuring where the money comes after that.’
We both agreed there was an abundance of trivial tech in the Valley, but also that there is innovation happening around health care related startups, so I rushed to show him a startup I interviewed recently – one of the few startups I thought had legs – only for him to tell me he’d just invested in the company, which led us into talking about the VC landscape where some VCs are buying a lottery ticket, investing in startups to get rich quick. It was refreshing to hear Brian share my thoughts and hear that he puts his fund to good use:
“I invest in anything involving a biology and technology that does not require clinical trials or hundreds of millions of capital,” he said, pointing to his Halcyon Molecular tee shirt – a DNA sequencing company that he’d recently invested in.
Not enough real-world problems
One of the reasons for lack of innovation in the Valley is that entrepreneurs are not exposed to enough real-world problems. It’s all relative of course, but the problems facing well-educated young people in San Francisco are certainly different from that of entrepreneurs in emerging markets. I can’t blame the entrepreneur too much though, I suppose it’s the traditional model of supply and demand; consumers in the USA clearly want to play Angry Birds, whereas in some African countries consumers are more likely to be searching for their nearest Malaria drugs clinic.
Every government in the world is trying to recreate what is going on in the Valley as they see it as a way out of the global recession and into job creation. Tech hubs are springing up all over the world in places you wouldn’t even imagine. Combine that with the fact that many entrepreneurs can’t get to the US because of visa issues (the Startup Visa Act could take another couple of years before it passes through both the House and the Senate) and you’ve got a recipe for startups that are solving real world-problems, outside of Silicon Valley.
There are also other incentives for entrepreneurs to build outside of the valley; Startup Chile is a government-backed organization that is encouraging entrepreneurs to build startups with the enticement of cheap developers – a scarcity in the Valley. Kundavi is building a community in Cabo, Mexico for startups, which not only has the promise of cheap cost of living for the bootstrapped entrepreneur, but is also geographically on a similar time zone (one hour later) with Silicon Valley, which makes phone calls with investors easy.
There is one thing though, that continues to set Silicon Valley apart from every other technology hub on the planet and that’s access to finance. The funding ecosystem here is unlike any other in the world. The European tech community has come a long way since I came onto the scene in 2008 with three or four tech events every night, but in terms of funding it does not even begin to compete with Silicon Valley. But the funding landscape is changing due to the cost of innovation decreasing rapidly which means anyone with a laptop and a WiFi connection can get an idea off the ground for dirt cheap.
Valley VCs are noticing this global trend and getting smart with it – angel investor Chris Sacca is investing in European startups; Dave McClure evangelizes his 500 Startups accelerator around the world with Geeks on a Plane, and Paul Bragiel’s i/O ventures is now one of the leading investors in East Africa. Journalist Sarah Lacy’s latest book reports on how entrepreneurs from emerging markets are taking local chaos and turmoil and turning it into opportunities, making millions and creating thousands of jobs – Valley entrepreneurs should take note of these self starters who through adversity are taking massive risks and succeeding.
If Silicon Valley wants to keep its number one spot as global startup innovator both entrepreneurs and VC’s need to get out of the bubble and go and see real problems in the world so they can start innovating and driving change. Obama needs to quickly pass the Startup Visa Act into US law, more media should cover tech outside the Valley, and this San Francisco fog better go away quickly – or I’m moving to Cabo.















This confirms what people like Mike Lee are trying to explain here in Amsterdam with movements like Appsterdam. Nice read!
I agree for the most part. There is a serious lack of vision AND a serious lack of reporting on the strategic landscape in which each company/product launches.
But where I disagree, is that for some reason you are discounting the originals with the clones. Yes there are a lot of groupon clones. But what about Groupon. A lot of Evernote clones, but what about Evernote.
Also the nice thing about Silicon Valley is that you and me don’t get to decide what’s going to ‘stick’ or what ‘matters’ – users decide. There is a lot of capital sloshing around so people get to try their variation on a theme.
Again, though, ambition is lacking and a sense of the real-world is totally lost out here.
Great post Hermione :)
@hermioneway Anywhere people make money, will attract people who want to make money.
@Chris Saad Well, Groupon was not founded in the Valley, so think that that point actually is made doubly: Valley companies are cloning a non-Valley firm.
@Alex Wilhelm @Chris Saad And Evernote was actually created and funded in Russia…
@zeeone @Alex Wilhelm Will shit the valley is bankrupt haha
@Chris Saad @zeeone :)
hermioneway first of all nice reading as always. As many of you know the Valley mainly provide you with resources not with inspiration, if you are talking about attacking or facing real problems the Valley by its self does not have them. Real problems and real world it’s out there, so you have to focus your inventiveness on that. Cloning is easy and some times profitable but I believe that should not be enough for us people. We should be thinking bigger and if that means live the cosiness of the “great” Valley well do it and go round the world and find you inspiration. At the end money always comes when your ideas are well structure and oriented.
@Xander Mahony @hermioneway ok, but that doesn’ mean it’s wrong – As a VC what kind of startups are you investing in? If we’re getting to a point where anyone can clone anything and VC’s are not needed for big rounds what does that mean for the future of funding startups?
@Chris Saad @Chris Saad Do you think Groupon is truly innovative? Many would argue it’s just a glorified discounts email newsletter… Many have also said it’s been detrimental to their business instead of enhancing as Groupon take such a large cut
@Farid El Nasire Appsterdam yes he is a great guy, but what about The Lean Startup – what do you think of that model?>
What a great piece, SV is solving a bunch of meaningless first world problems. Over-privileged and parochial doesn’t even begin to describe it.
If only as much money was focused on incubators in the developing countries.
@Hermione Way @hermioneway VC’s fund big businesses. Big businesses generally require very big checks to scale (event profitable ones like Dropbox). VCs also provide a formal hands on service that is very time consuming. It’s not really practical to sit on the board of more than 10-20 sizable companies.
Angels are able to maintain a wider portfolio, giving more flexible guidance and writing smaller checks. With plentiful angel money around, lots of smaller ideas get funded, and lots of good ideas get funded to a multi-million dollar degree before VCs are needed.
VCs now get involved at later stages, and higher valuations but we also get the benefit of investing in more well formed, well tutored companies. We are still aiming for the same thing though: big businesses – $100m+ and $1bn+ businesses, which is the only way to make meaningful returns if you are writing a $10m+ check.
I’d say that the bigger issue from this for VCs is that by the time a company is looking for VC money, it’s more obvious who the big winners are, and they thus can justify a huge valuation, and require that the money comes from Sequoia et al. Thus VCs are incentivized to swing for the fences to invest in the next Facebook so they can join the super-VCs club. It’s not clear that everyone scrambling only for marquee deals is the best way to invest.
@James Barnes I think they are begining to catch on – Google Ventures just launched incubators in South African and other parts of the world -Startup Weekend is now going all over the world too.
This article is really biased. The author is only talking to VC/startups that are primarily focused on web related ideas/projects. There are plenty of cleantech and life science companies in the Bay Area that are solving real problems, you just didn’t speak to them. There are a lot of “me too” web startups out there, so I do agree with that point, but to hint that there is a lack of innovation in Silicon Valley is false.
I think it’s mostly down to greed. VC’s like Dave McClure aren’t interested in changing the world, they’re only interested in becoming more wealthy. And if starting up their own X-Factor style factory, in the hope that eventually something will come along, is what it takes, then that’s what they’re willing to do.
Is Y-Combinators success really outstanding or is it just a statistical probability, given the numbers? Plus they were the first no?
I personally don’t associate Sillicon Valley with innovation, not anymore. Certainly not tech startups. Apple, sure, but that’s a completely different ball game. Back in the early days when personal computers were changing the world. A lot of the startups you hear about aren’t that innovative, they’ve just found a minor tweak or twist on something that matters to them.
I tell you what is innovative, World of FourCraft lolz
Brilliant! As someone who recently transitioned from the non-profit sector, a world of actual doers and makers /and one populated with very few young people indeed/, to the tech startup world, I couldn’t agree more. I often find myself arguing vigorously with strikingly smart yet oblivious entrepreneurs who proudly state that they are here to make a change in the world…what frightens me the most – along the way they truly started believing it. And yes, I agree that if exposed to real-world matters some of these young men and women would be more inclined to find real-world solutions. But, if in your 20s you have an exit strategy and not a cause…well, you are a schmuck!
Good post, you are right, but as Shai says, you may not be seeing the whole picture, there are interesting things happening even in the valley that are not me too web-scale properties. They struggle to get funded though.
@Shai Goldman Agreed. Every day the people on the ground floor of the Valley community see companies that are solving real problems.
Maybe the real problem here isn’t the aim of Valley entrepreneurs, but who our tech media outlets choose to listen to. As Denzel said in American Gangster, “The loudest one in the room is the weakest one.”
Here’s to hoping that TNW starts seeking out and listening to the quiet ones. Lord knows that ship has already sailed at TC.
@Shai Goldman Shai, I was at an event at Stanford last week put on by The National Science Foundation- they were saying they are finding it really hard to get funding and press for their molecular biology startup because the industry doesn’t find it sexy enough -and this is my point, investors are investing in consumer tech to make a quick buck when they should be investing in startups that are making an impact for the long run -which is what Brian Singerman is trying to do.
@Francisco Vanda I would love to go around the world and report on startups and innovation happening around the world.
I couldn’t agree more. The vast majority of the companies I see out here are not worth spending time on, and some aren’t even really companies. It’s quite disappointing.
@Brendan McManus @Shai Goldman Brendan/Shai I would love to travel the world and find the world’s most innovative startups – technology that’s making an impact on people’s lives. I would also like to find technology like that in the valley- can you point me in the right direction? hermione@thenextweb.com
@thinkcomp Are you a VC? How can we encourage more of these young people to really make a difference? Perhaps a gap year for startup entrepreneurs?!
@Vera Glavova You ask any Valley entrepreneur what they want to do and they will say ‘ change the world’, but when you ask them to pitch their startup they present another photo sharing app or Groupon clone – these are the world’s more intelligent young people, surely they can do better?
@Tim Panton See my reply to Shai, investors are not willing to invest in these startups so they can’t grow- but if you know anyone point me in the right direction hermione@thenextweb.com
Unfortunately, I think it is going to be rare to find people interested in building companies in the valley for reasons other than financial gain. In a society that glorifies money and wealth, is this unexpected?
Great article, thanks for sharing.
@Shai Goldman There is lots of innovation in Silicon Valley, but there could be more if we encouraged both VCs and entrepreneurs to build Clean Tech and innovate in deeper areas of technology instead of trying to build the next Color or Groupon Clone
@Xander Mahony @Hermione Way Xander -fabulous insight to the VC world – i’m interested to know more…So why would the entrepreneur require the money come from Sequoia? Is that because they are the cool kids in the Valley?
@William Jimenez I have interviewed people from emerging markets about the technology being built there- one guy was telling me about how they are using mobiles to keep tabs on the distribution of Malaria drugs and one startups in SA innovating around mobile health on non-smart phones- so yes it is happening outside the valley.
@Ray Dave McClure is being savvy and evangelizing his brand around the world – he brings startups from outside the valley into the USA
@Hermione Way I think its amazing. I was in the ACARA Challenge. We couldn’t raise 10 grand to save aquifers in India, but yet I see obvious short-cut ideas in any entrepreneur news source getting 100s of thousands. I have another project for dev/deploying pandemic drugs now though, so maybe I can bring some credibility back to the young and educated. :-)
You are absolutely right that the majority of startups are not tackling interesting or important problems. However, this is not exclusive to Silicon Valley. And it is only half the fault of the entrepreneurs — I know plenty who are working on interesting stuff. Its just that…interesting startups RARELY get funded. Innovation = risk, and investors are risk-adverse. They would rather safely poor money into some copy cat then risk something that might (*gasp*) have a higher chance of failure.
@Brian Reardon @Hermione Way I would be interested in hearing about it! hermione@thenextweb.com It’s a similar situation for finding love…Men say they want want intelligent, independent women but when it comes down to it they want a submissive, trophy wife…but i’ll save that for another post!
Mmm… people who are not starting companies themselves talking about how entrepreneurs are not bold enough.
Do you know what so many ‘world changing technologies’ that you vaguely aspire to all started as? Simple projects with small ambitions.
It’s like saying “NBA players don’t work hard enough for their salaries!” Really, if its so easy why don’t you play ball?
@hermioneway They can and they must! A big part of the problem also is what the tech media reports on and what the ‘internet celebrities’ decide to push/ omit. And for God’s sake, we don’t need another photo app. So people, stop tweeting about it!
Would be nice to work on connecting NGO’s based in the Valley with talented engineers, UX folks and entrepreneurs; even better, we could spice up those tedious tech events by inviting NGO reps who share their experiences, needs and vision.
@hermioneway @Hermione Way haha, and yes I’ll send you an email soon!
@Gavan Woolery How can we change that model? Or will it always be like that?
@Vera Glavova or better still we could take them to accelerators outside the Valley like startup Chile or Kundavi where developers and cost if living is lots cheaper
Spotify clones? Don’t you mean Pandora clones? :)
H,
Very good article. Particularly happy to see you poking the Silicon Dragon. It’s not perfect by any measure.
Start-Up act will not be done quickly, for a number of reasons as we know, but I agree that the sentiment is solid. How we find the solution to “Fisher Price: My First Start-Up” mentality is a bigger problem though. There are a bunch of fools on both sides of the investment table who wish they were back in 2001.
Very pleased to watch your progress over there so far in 2011.
C
H,
Very good article. Particularly happy to see you poking the Silicon Dragon. It’s not perfect by any measure.
Start-Up act will not be done quickly, for a number of reasons as we know, but I agree that the sentiment is solid. How we find the solution to “Fisher Price: My First Start-Up” mentality is a bigger problem though. There are a bunch of fools on both sides of the investment table who wish they were back in 2001.
Very pleased to watch your progress over there in 2011.
CL
they’re very different
@charlielass Good to hear from you Charlie! Yes Startup Visa won’t come into play for another few years..i think we’ll see better innovation from Techhubs outside of SV
@Hermione Way @Farid El Nasire most people prefer safe to scary and get on bandwagons – great to spot the spikes of biodiversity in the ‘same old’
@hermioneway Unfortunately, I do not think there is any easy fix, unless a VC comes along with real vision and appetite for risk. One problem is that typically VCs are not investing their own money, but other people’s, so they cannot “gamble” other people’s money. Ironically, investing in “safe” startups is often a bad idea, since clones tend to have a high rate of failure. The sad truth is that the majority of people who control venture capital are not that creative, and a good deal more of them are not even technologically competent (at least, they have no engineering background). Even VCs who are seemingly smart people invest in mundane, boring ideas. Sometimes, it seems like every VC is blind to obvious, good ideas. Either that, or they are not at all proactive.
The game Minecraft, created mostly by one person in the span of a few months, has made over $35 million dollars. The idea was not creative, it had been tried before (with Infiniminer, and I even built something similar back in 2004). It did not take any investment, but a similar game could be produced with very little capital, and vastly improved upon without building an outright clone. Yet VCs continue to invest in the same social gaming companies, because obviously Zynga does not have enough competition.
http://www.ilove-shopping.org
hbvbvb
Not in the valley and working on making a difference. BFI is a stepping stone, take a look at the main goal http://www.begfor.it/about
@BEGFOR.iT™ I’ll check it!
@pheats I do not think any world-changing product ever started as a Groupon-clone, but I could be wrong :) I think there are plenty of areas worth tackling that are less mundane than your average startup. Robotics, bioinformatics, computer graphics, system/OS architecture, energy (production/storage/efficiency), etc. The problems are that a) most of these areas are relatively expensive compared to your average web startup, and b) they often involve unproven ground. Two things that investors hate. However, I think the payoff could be huge in some areas, like robotics, for example. But even that said, there are many interesting ideas for web startups that have not yet (successfully) been implemented. The problem with many web startups is that they focus on acquiring users, rather than building real businesses.
@hermioneway Thank you… Please let me know if you have any questions or comments/feedback
Loved the post @hermioneway! And like your comments too Vera! I just had a great meeting with one of the founders of B Lab. Check out their model and mission – http://www.bcorporation.net/ My big question to them was how are they educating VCs/Investors about this benefit and why it’s important to invest in these types of companies.
Certified B Corporations are a new type of corporation which uses the power of business to solve social and environmental problems. B Corps are unlike traditional businesses because they:
Meet comprehensive and transparent social and environmental performance standards; Meet higher legal accountability standards;Build business constituency for good business
I think that even if the entrepreneurs are thinking about increasing user engagement, number of users etc., it still relates to the technology. For example to increase user engagement, you must be offering a good service. In my opinion it’s fine, everything still correlates pretty well.
Also, of course there are always clones/similar services than others, but that’s what competition is about. For example streaming movies online isn’t a unique / patent-deserving idea, and the more competition there is, the better it will be for the end-user : prices will stay low and competitive, quality must be top-notch etc.
It’s not because a company is so big and mediatized that the others are just copying. They just want to compete and innovate in their own ways
I think especially with young/new entrepreneurs, but in general with most entrepreneurs, they solve problems they’re familiar with. Hence the clones and photo apps you mentioned are exactly the kinds of “problems” they see.
Therefore, I think the question is how do you make entrepreneurs interested in building a company aware of opportunities to build a profitable business for what are “real” problems?
<!– p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Verdana} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Verdana; min-height: 15.0px} –>
<p>I was at the BBQ. I didn’t realize it at first, because the BBQ she describes is completely different from the BBQ I attended. I’m so perplexed, it leaves me wondering if this is ethical journalism.</p>
Good article. It does seem like it’s a race when I hear a few founders talk about their startups and how fast it’s scaling.
Like anything, if you’re in it solely for the money it will show through the business problems you solve and the thin relationships you foster. Passionate people are a rare find and when I meet one, I’m inspired to be a part of their vision. It’s not inspiring to talk to someone who is only about cash.
Here’s a similar article I wrote last year that seems to be related: http://www.hiringjuice.com/blog/2010/11/22/is-bigger-better.html
<!– p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Verdana} –>
<p>I was at the BBQ as well. I didn’t realize it at first, because the BBQ she describes is completely different from the BBQ I attended. I’m so perplexed, it leaves me wondering if this is ethical journalism.</p>
<p> </p>
@Jason Evanish I think that is the crux of the challenge. The opportunities are out there, its just harder to interface with ground water hydrology or biology or algal biofuels than it is with ‘what makes a good app’ , I mean I’m an engineer and its easier to me to do ‘what makes a good app’ lol too, so its hard to fault people i think for using what they know.
@Gavan Woolery Gavan, if its so easy – interesting ideas for web startups that is – why don’t you do it? Second point – acquiring users and building a real business are the same thing. Ask your local pizza shop owner if customers are important. Thirdly – “interesting” is a slippery slope. Would “writing Basic interpreters for computers used by a few thousand hobbyists” be interesting? Because that’s what Microsoft was for YEARS. Lastly, don’t ever forget that Google tried to sell to Microsoft for $1m. The reason it didn’t happen? Microsoft passed. So much for myths of god like founders on epic missions.
Also, like others in this comment thread, I was at the BBQ. What she describes is a different event. Its a good story – knocking down entrepreneurs who bust their ass all day because they do not entertain her preconceived notions of early stage companies. Now thats shallow way to acquire users.
The point of SV and of the VC ecosystem is to make money, pure and simple. It is not about changing the world, revolutionizing human interaction, solving [insert big problem here] or any of those mushy yet worthwhile things. There are other avenues/business models/vehicles for funding worthwhile things, venture isn’t one of them.
It’s just about the $$$$$$. That’s it, nothing else.
While it may admirable and worthwhile to fund things that change the world (whatever that means…), the bankers that fund SV (and they are bankers, mostly) have discovered that those things are not the way you make easy(ish), big money. So they fund things that cater to the lowest common denominator or that encourage more laziness – or whatever large numbers of people will quickly fork over their cash for.
What ever you heard about SV (and whatever all of you who are not in SV think you know about SV), it’s wrong. SV is like Hollywood, the reality of it is much different than the image. The ‘elites’ of SV spend a lot of time convincing everyone else in the world that what we do here is so insanely cool that you just have to buy/use/participate in it now…. I’m afraid you’ve been a victim of the PR.
And like Hollywood, it takes a really long time to be an insider (not to mention a lot of work) and make it work for you. Certainly a lot longer than six months…
Chris (8 startups, 4 exits, ~15 yrs in SV)
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-guru-of-silicon-valley-startups-steve-blank-2011-5
Excerpt from a recent Steve Blank interview with Business:
BI: You’ve written about the secret history of Silicon Valley. What makes this place unique for entrepreneurs?
SB: Do you know what they call a failed entrepreneur here? Experienced.
Anywhere else in the world you’ve got to change your name. You’ve got to leave your town. Think about any conversation you’ve had with a failed entrepreneur. Here you tell somebody “I just blew through a couple million dollars” and what’s the next question your friend asks you? “So what company are you doing next?”
Silicon Valley was a physical place, it extended from Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View. Now it’s a state of mind that essentially extends from San Jose to San Francisco. We’ve become a company town focused on innovation and entrepreneurship.
The United States and other places in the world have clusters of industry. Milan is fashion. Detroit used to be cars. Hollywood was movies. Silicon Valley — we do one thing here. We do innovation. This is more like Athens or more like Paris in the 20s or Florence in the Middle Ages. The rules change when you get off the airplane or drive across the Golden Gate Bridge. Failure equals experience. Risk equals progress. There are no wrong answers.
BI: How do you set that up elsewhere? What’s unique here? Did it come out of UC and Stanford? Is it the climate, is it something in the water?
SB: People write about the entrepreneurs because they’re exciting and they’re interesting. But people forget the core of the valley isn’t entrepreneurs. It’s a combination of entrepreneurs and a set of equally crazy people who are risk-capital investors. Silicon Valley would be a bunch of smart scientists and entrepreneurs sitting in their labs and their garages without having an equally capable, equally crazy financial asset class.
Where else can a bunch of financial people say to their investors “there’s one thing I can guarantee you: I’m gonna lose 90% of your money.”
“I should probably take it to Las Vegas. Why should I give you my money?”
“Because the other 10% is probably going to make you 10x.”
Now of course some smartass is going to say “why don’t I give you only the 10%.” The problem is we still don’t know which one, although we’re getting smarter.
What people keep forgetting, this is a Valley based on enormous greed. I don’t mean greed in a nasty way. Why do VCs exist? Obscene returns. Not OK returns. Obscene returns. It’s the infrastructure that allows that to happen.
You go to Argentina or Chile — it takes years to shut down a company. Here you shut down a company in a week and a half. What’s the capital gains rate? Somewhere else it’s 90%. Well fuck you, why should I have a venture capital firm? I’m working for the government.
——-
@Hermione Way I appreciate your article and you make some interesting points. The fact remains that there are some amazing startups in Silicon Valley innovating and pushing the limits of disruption in a number of categories. It appears you’re not looking in the right place. You gotta get out of the office and go find them.
Great article! “Trivial tech” describes the problem aptly. Promising, highly talented tech guys are giving in to the temptation of choosing the path of least resistance – one that requires little or no creativity. Every time I hear/read of another startup I ask myself “would our lives be miserable if this product did not exist?” If the answer is ‘no’ it is trivial tech to me!
There are plenty of real world problems that offer significant biz opportunities right here – in our SV neighborhood. We just need to be more empathetic towards them. Homeowners being ripped off by banks, kids dropping out of schools, under-performing schools, mismanagement at our hospitals, heathcare cost issues..the list goes on!
Lastly, the VC’s need to step up and encourage this behavior too..
I don’t think it’s even as complex as that. I think there’s a lot out there that still involves web and mobile technology. It’s just a matter of finding an effective way to discover those problems and then a scalable way to build a business around it.
‘Many entrepreneurs are in it for the wrong reasons, they should be more focused on doing something big and good for the world and figuring where the money comes after that.’
Replace ‘entrepreneurs’ with ‘VCs’ and that sentence works even better.
In our experience, pitching our (genuinely world-changing) company to angels has had them fighting over us. Their money, their legacy.
In contrast, VCs are managing OPM – and most won’t give us a second look because they assume we’re a charity.
Not all, though… ;)
http://www.charityengine.com (as seen at TNW 2011)
@Jason Evanish Oh, yea I’d buy into that too, for sure. I see things every day people aren’t addressing.
90%+ of startups fail, YC or not. Your description of me-too’s is nothing new either. Go back to the rise of eCommerce or back to the 80s when the rise of multimedia and CDROMs in “Multimedia Gulch” put SF on the map.
Indeed – SV is a fairly closed system and it does not leave room for us outliers (I am an East Coast woman of – er – a certain age who has started a marketing tech venture).
I recently had a meeting with a VC in his 30s who proceeded to lecture me about how Foursquare will take over marketing when in fact, I was trying to explain to him that there are too many marketing tech pieces but no methodologies to work with it.
I was summarily dismissed.
Us outliers don’t hang with the SV crowd – so there’s no fresh infusions of ideas that is borne of working in the real world where the sun does not shine all the time.
In my personal case – so far so good. Our tech venture seemed to “hockey stick” financially all of a sudden and we have not needed a VC yet. But if I do need help, I am lucky as I I have some tenuous intro’s into that world (Hi Brian and Cyan :)
But I enjoy being outside the SV bubble – I like wearing pretty dresses and colorful shoes. Beats drab khakis any day of the week.
Judy Shapiro
engageSimply.com
As one of the masses with a laptop and a wifi connection I am grateful that the same VC model is generally applied outside of SV. @markmca – I hear you!
Discussions about pivots, raises and IPOs would be just a distraction, and no VC is going to be interested in seeding an open source project whose major point is to be easy for anyone to adopt, clone and expand.
This laptop (or tablet or phone) and wifi should enable the rest of us to focus on our own little and good projects, but we already have enough distractions:
Social networking interruptions and making comments on far flung blogs and articles
Finding the right cloud platform
Convincing busy developers that 3 days of coding will be enough for Alpha launch
A day job needed to provide the roof, food, and the laptop & connection
Maybe the real “big and good” project will be an app that firewalls us off from the all the noise on the Internet, and let’s us just access those software repositories and focus on our “little and good” projects ;-)
Remember the Happy Man in Pretty Woman? “Welcome to Hollywood! What’s your dream? Everybody comes here; this is Hollywood, land of dreams. Some dreams come true, some don’t; but keep on dreamin’ – this is Hollywood. Always time to dream, so keep on dreamin’”
The extended valley is the same. I would estimate more individual wealth in the valley has come from share options tan start-up exits – certainly my experience. Much of this wealth is reinvested in new dreams, perhaps old clones too but then a fool and his money are easily parted.
In the Valley you can find whatever you seek so if you want to find well funded banal start-ups they are easily found. Fundamental research is around every corner too but has a smaller PR budget. Who needs the tech bubble apps like FaceBook – I mean really needs? Exactly, but pretty much every one here playing the worthy card will be adding to their revenues today in some way. Which of you will give it up for cyber sackcloth?
The valley is the valley. The juxtaposition of Sand Hill Road to Stanford does place more investors on an innovations-aware trajectory but everything that is great doesn’t happen on California Ave. Coupled with the fact that many VC’s are staffed by former engineers and PM’s from the Valley greats makes for more interesting meetings and some valuable input for start-ups. And many have to buy in to their VC too so their money is on the line. Not always but mostly. In Europe most VC’s are staffed by ex bankers and accountants and I have rarely been in a European VC meeting where an intelligent opinion was voiced. Sorry.
Most investors obviously invest for return or else they are philanthropists. The near term has advantages hence cloning but Groupon is neither a valley phenomenon nor a tech start-up – there is about as much tech as a Bangalore call centre in that business. Bubbles attract sheep and make tech press headlines, but it is a big mistake to that that is all that is going on.
Welcome to the Valley – what’s your dream?
Hermione: I answered you over on Google+. https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts You aren’t seeing the real Silicon Valley yet. Please look deeper.
You need to surround yourself with smarter people and smarter projects. Expand.
Push through noise, don’t be blocked by it.
@hermioneway @Vera Glavova
I know two developers/entrepreneurs trying to do just that (helping computer scientists use their skills for social change). Let me know if you would like me to put you in touch with them. You can PM me at ed “dot” castano “at” gmail “dot” com.
@Drew Olanoff My whole point is that there are smart people here, really intelligent people, some of the most highly educated in the world, but alot of the time they are not realizing their full potential and building technology that’s driving society forward, it’s often just for commecial gain or the goal is an exit- it should not be like this.
@Robert Scoble Replying on +, I don’t think you’re getting my point
Shared by Nicholas Chase on G+ under @RobertScobles post:
Hermione,
This is something that has bugged me for six years. We gave away our US manufacturing due to some MBA’s deciding this would save us money. Attached to the greed in the mortgage and derivatives markets we are now weaker than ever. Europe has old ways, meaning relationships between supplier and manufacturer are centuries in the making. Who wants to deal with the USA with it’s crushing debt and our lenders have no hope of being repaid? My grandfather and father would be so angry at the current government inactivity towards balancing the budget and national debt that they would suggest impeachment of the entire Executive and Legislative branches and starting over with a fresh batch of silicon valley venture capitalists. Your thoughts?
Nicholas Chase
Shared by Nicholas Chase on G+ under @RobertScobles post:
Hermione,
This is something that has bugged me for six years. We gave away our US manufacturing due to some MBA’s deciding this would save us money. Attached to the greed in the mortgage and derivatives markets we are now weaker than ever. Europe has old ways, meaning relationships between supplier and manufacturer are centuries in the making. Who wants to deal with the USA with it’s crushing debt and our lenders have no hope of being repaid? My grandfather and father would be so angry at the current government inactivity towards balancing the budget and national debt that they would suggest impeachment of the entire Executive and Legislative branches and starting over with a fresh batch of silicon valley venture capitalists. Your thoughts?
@Robert Scoble
hello, welcome, goodmorning
Sorry.. i mentioned you on G+ i know you aren’t on there yet. I am guessing you will be though.. https://plus.google.com/u/0/113349924607717329969/posts/FHvxJRmu42L
“‘If you’re a white, under 30, tech geek with no social life and a Harvard/Stanford dropout, line up for VC money.’” John Doerr
What’s the likelihood that a Harvard/Stanford dropout actually would know a real world problem in order to solve it? Many of these, are young men and women who’ve grown up in privilege — and outside a few philanthropic trips, aren’t familiar with suffering or failure. Education? Healthcare? Clean Energy? These are not the problems that have faced the kinds of folks VCs want to fund.
It’s a conundrum; VCs only want to fund the next “Groupon” et. al because they want to make money in order to generate a positive return for their LP’s; why would anyone expect any different result than a rush to invest in companies that have a clear path to exit or IPO?
One prominent investor tweeted “I’m happy as an investor to invest in X company, but sad as a human being.”
That, is the problem.
As an entrepreneur who is in the process of raising funds for a new venture i found this article to be amusing and confirmation of a growing trend, All VCs/ business angels seem to be interested in are social networks which offer huge signups , massive returns and as mentioned, a quick exit… and guess what …! not just in silicon Valley , I am in Switzerland and it is no different here. Let us not forget though, that these VCs /BA are in it for the money and for profits, They don’t want to change the world . Often great products and Ideas are overlooked simply because they do not fit the current profile or trend for explosive “social networking ” If you don’t tick all the boxes this week then … frankly forget it !. I say build the business with your own money and efforts . When your product is a huge success then you can turn around and say “I told you so” . Sure it will take a lot longer on meagre resources, but believe me , it is a lot more satisfying. Crawl before you walk, then you will eventually learn to run….
Hermoine, the thing I loved about this article is that it presents the fundamental problem that exists before we even get down to discussing the issues that plague our World – Opportunity to do good vs. Opportunity to earn returns. It’s a scenario that plagues the rest of the world too, but it was very interesting to see you make the point that it is in fact, the “smart, young people” who seem to be getting into the act of “starting up the next big thing” without sparing a thought for innovation for the sake of innovation, or for the sake of answering a need. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the “need” that resonates the strongest is that of profit, and so a B-O-T model suits the average smart entrepreneur because it’s his/her next big meal ticket. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but collectively, it doesn’t seem to bode well.
To use an example I’m more familiar with, India just witnessed another series of bomb blasts in Mumbai. Yet, for my money, or in my humble opinion, what the media presents “the indomitable spirit of Mumbai”, showing people picking up the pieces and getting on with their lives, is really them not having a choice. The average person in Mumbai is living the epitome of the “rat race” kind of existence, where grief in this regard is a luxury they can’t afford, because they have to get to work, to get a paycheck, to feed themselves. It’s that simple, unfortunately. Similarly, the new entrepreneurs who are currently engaged in developing clones, don’t really seem to have a choice. They worked hard to get to where they are because that future gave them promise, even if that promise is reduced to tons of money, fast cars, et al. We all feel the pain of others succumbing to natural or man-made events around the World…but it’s almost expected of us to decry a war in this country, or some famine/drought elsewhere. So, we do.
Thank you for this eye-opener, and in my opinion, a very honest account of what things are really like, in the face of all the comments that seem to ask you to “look deeper”. :)
Talking about software to change the world… take a look at this , a bunch of Students from remote town in Ireland develop a software to improve road safety… http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0714/microsoft_imagine.html
Hi Hermione,
First of all, I want to thank you for this very interesting read. For me it would feel like a slight disappointment to have left the Europe Tech scene for another that still doesn’t inspire you like you expected it to. I saw Loic le Meur on Techcrunch TV the other day explaining the same problem that you are describing. But he was talking about Europe’s tech scene.
Where do you think the actual problem lies in? With the startup entrepreneurs that turn from idealists to capatalists as soon as they get a sniff at the money that could lie ahead. Or the VPs and Angel investors that are not risking to put their money in real innovative ideas? I think al startup entrepreneurs start from an idealistic point of view. Seeing the change in technology and what it can do. But when you have to market your product and everybody tells you what your “business model” is they commercialize to something that has proven success.
How do you think we can change this problem?
Why the hell do you answer on Google+?
I also don’t think you get the point of the article..
Why the hell do you answer over on Google+?
I also think you don’t get the point of the article..
@Robert Scoble
<!– p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’} span.s1 {font: 8.0px ‘Times New Roman’} –>
<p>Great article. I think there a lot of people are on the same page as you. Yes we can blame the entire system (VC, entrepreneurs, media etc) but that might take a long time to change….I am also certain there are a lot of start-ups in SV that are solving real world problems but dont get support/noticed/funded/talked about! But it boiles down to the environment. A simple example of IN Valley solution v/s OUTSIDE valley solution to sort of the same problem – take Square (https://squareup.com/) as IN Valley and M-Pesa or EKO as OUT valley innovation. You can clearly see how the environment ( by that I mean infra, system, people, problems – everything) dictated a different solution. You tell me which is a better solution ( I hope views are not based on wow I can sign on my pad) and which is more innovative considering the contraints. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Coming to my main point – those who are disillusioned by SV and are looking to explore outside, take a look at alternatives movements out there. All is not lost, maybe some day these might finally make to mainstream :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>a) Appropriate Technology ( as termed by Schumacher)</p>
<p>b) Grassroots Innovation ( as termed by Prof Anil Gupta)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I actually wrote a paper on it… so anyone interested in knowing more can email me at mojorisin.hardik@gmail.com</p>
@Edward Castaño would love to get in touch with them. thanks for the heads up, I’ll def ping you!
Interesting how you talk of so many product clones coming out of SV while @loic complains of the same phenomenon in Europe. As an American entrepreneur based in Paris, I see lots of great, novel ideas coming out of the startup community in Europe, notably in Paris, London and Amsterdam. The investor community here is certainly more risk-averse than in SV, but as a startup it’s somewhat easier to be a “big fish in a small pond”, especially if you are doing something novel.
Great article. I think there a lot of people are on the same page as you. Yes we can blame the entire system (VC, entrepreneurs, media etc) but that might take a long time to change….I am also certain there are a lot of start-ups in SV that are solving real world problems but dont get support/noticed/funded/talked about! But it boiles down to the environment. A simple example of IN Valley solution v/s OUTSIDE valley solution to sort of the same problem – take Square (https://squareup.com/) as IN Valley and M-Pesa or EKO as OUT valley innovation. You can clearly see how the environment ( by that I mean infra, system, people, problems – everything) dictated a different solution. You tell me which is a better solution ( I hope views are not based on wow I can sign on my pad) and which is more innovative considering the contraints.
Coming to my main point – those who are disillusioned by SV and are looking to explore outside, take a look at alternatives movements out there. All is not lost, maybe some day these might finally make to mainstream :)
a) Appropriate Technology ( as termed by Schumacher)
b) Grassroots Innovation ( as termed by Prof Anil Gupta)
I actually wrote a paper on it… so anyone interested in knowing more can email me at mojorisin.hardik@gmail.com
@Joseph Walla why would it be unethical?
@Raimo van der Klein I answered there because that’s where I wanted to have a discussion.
I just got back from Bangladesh and initially was unaware that I could use internet on my SmartPhone. GrameenPhone [part of GrameenBank that bought Micro-Finanacing to the poor] have a option to get Edge 2G on your phone. I was surprised by the decent reception that I got in the village.
My family own a private medical centre in Sylhet, Bangladesh and in the next 10 years I would like to expand to see a free service offered within the villages. This will probably start with sanitary advice using mobile units.
However I am now thinking with the expansion of mobile connectivity for internet that I should invest in an online presence that provides medical and health advice. Obviously people can see this using the phones but a touch application on a tablet with a dongle could be setup in partnership with local general practitioners/pharmacies.
I think I can secured advertising revenue to support the inniative from pharmaceutical companies. The cost for such innovations is not massive at all and when there is a growth in the use of internet on phones [which is expensive for the average user] then medical advice can be delivered to the most remote areas where there is not even any electricity [I had internet access in a village that only uses solar power to get lighting].
Is this the type of innovation that we should be exploring @Hermione Way
Great Article. I agree that One of the reasons for lack of innovation in the Valley is that entrepreneurs are not exposed to enough real-world problems. Entrepreneurs should spend some time in Asia and Africa (Even Bill Gates is doing that post Microsoft!).
If some one is observant and cares for innovation, daily life in Asia provides enough real world problems to solve.Here is list of 50 technology innovation opportunities by observing daily life in Asia.
http://pareekhjain.blogspot.com/2010/07/50-telecom-and-technology-innovations.html
A lot of the “companies” in today’s social networking startup ecosystem are the equivalent of sugar water. Read my 2008 BusinessWeek story about it. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_02/b4115028730216.htm
@Lorin David Kalisky Agreed Lorin: also an American in France, I find that this is the most poignant part:
Not enough real-world problems
One of the reasons for lack of innovation in the Valley is that entrepreneurs are not exposed to enough real-world problems.
IMHO: it would be great if the US investors realized this & focused a bit more over here.
@Hermione Way
What a timely and interesting blog post!
As someone from non-glamorous bits of North London (Tottenham no less) with a keen interest in web technology and social media I’ve had to keep my cynicism hat firmly on as I know that for some, the advent of social media etc dosent work with a life where libraries are closing down and the job centre has been replaced with Linkedin and video CVs.
Face to face interaction isn’t on the agenda anymore which is mostly understandeble (web technologies give us free and fast services that are global) and that’s cool, but lets not forget as we trumpet more and more admittedly exciting ideas, that for some Skype, Evernote and even email are another country.
As cool as bubbles are giving space to develop and grow an idea what happens when some can peer in but most can’t get in? You talk of medical and bio start ups coming out of the developing world. I wonder how this then matches up to the huge swaths of people from less fortunate backgrounds in the developing world who just about use Facebook but fear the digital changeover (young mums, older people etc). It’s all very well having a really good idea but I wonder how access to these deepening changes to our social make up will make a real differences to all people or are we missing the bigger picture?
I wrote something similar on GigaOm last year = URL below. I think you may have narrowly looked at consumer tech and even more narrowly at social tech. If you broaden focus to cleantech, biotech etc there is plenty of other innovation happening
http://gigaom.com/2010/08/17/is-silicon-valley-focusing-too-much-on-consumer-tech/
Silicon Valley has been this way since at least the late 1990s. It is full of “business” guys who went to schools like harvard, yale, etc, and therefore, actually know nothing about business (but are great at schmoozing) hooking up with their older compatriots at VC firms to do deals, hire engineers (gullibly junior engineers) to overwork them until they can flip the BS “company” to a larger more established company and do it all over again.
Anyone with any real engineering chops, or any business sense, knows well enough to stay away from there. And with the costs being what they are– that is, over the top expensive in the bay area, while the cost to start a web company is pocket change now– anyone who is worth a damn, already has enough money to self fund their startup. (Except for maybe some talented engineers just out of college, that is, but they should join a local startup, not go to the valley.)
Silicon Valley, like the rest of california, is a joke. A pale husk of the california dream, that I’m not sure was ever a reality.
In short, don’t believe the hype.
@Robert Scoble @Raimo van der Klein
Blow it out your ass, Scoble.
this is a great article Hermione and I love the honest of the commentary, the problem that we find ourselves in generally, is that the creative spark that started Silicon Valley is now been monetised, and everything has a value associated with it.
The thing I love about the existing tech scene emerging in East London is that the creative spark is still there, the desire to find solutions to current problems is still alive, you just need to look at @techhub – a co-location office space based near Old Street. I recently wrote a blog post about their first year celebrations and mentioned some of the creative start-ups I met (http://blogs.cisco.com/cle/digital-britain-creative-and-tech-talent-landscape/)
Couldn’t agree more with Hermione. Ideas and impact DO matter in spite of profitability. Ask Google labs.
So many raw nerves and all over the wrong debate. US currently wins the scale battle sure, but that isn’t a product of some unique talent exclusive to Silicon Valley or Americans, it’s just the place where the tech community and it’s financial support mechanism has congregated like the movie business did in Hollywood. What is also as apparent is that Europe does style better than anyone else and scale without style is just hype (or at best a temporary lack of an alternative).
Using Facebook as a benchmark, 70% of it’s users are outside of the US, which may or may not increase and it is worth noting that the vast majority of hardware is manufactured in China who, by the way we are both increasingly indebted to as a result of our previous arrogances. Talking globally but acting nationally isn’t, in my opinion, healthy for either Americans or Europeans and neither is the assumption that technological innovation alone will drive economies without a little sex appeal built in. At the heart of the latter I would venture you’ll usually find a European. (Ive, Houser, Coppola, Sorrell, Mendes, etc. etc.)
We should be focusing our investment communities on owning and investing in that! That way Hermione would feel good wherever she goes, tech companies would create more sexy products for consumers and Loic would have to eat his words. After all, you can’t just pay the bills by blowing up bubbles and watching them pop or there will be no old grandmas left to foot the bill. You actually have to sell products or sell advertising to brands… who may cease to exist in the alternate homogenized and sexless environment we might otherwise end up with. Let’s stop bitching and work for each other not against…
The number of quality companies is about the same, it is up to you if you want to be distracted by the increasing number of joke companies.
Hmmm. I pointed this out a long time ago. http://www.whoiskevin.com/day/2009/01/07
The preponderance of start-ups related to finding the next cupcake, etc. isn’t likely due to the lack of real problems in Silicon Valley (or elsewhere in the U.S.) — there are plenty of people with real problems there (albeit first world problems, e.g., “how do I get a job when I’m over 50 and have been unemployed for a year?” and not “where’s the nearest malaria clinic”). More likely, it’s due to the relative youth of many of the entrepreneurs, and their lack of experience in other lines of work.
Regarding the two examples of ‘game-changing’ start-ups you mention,
<blockquote>”Airbnb is one of them, not for what they are now but for founder Brian Chesky’s vision to become the eBay for traded goods. If it works it could put a halt on manufacturing new goods and put a stop to the raping of Earth’s limited resources.”</blockquote>
A world without new manufacturing? What a depressing vision. Where would the innovative new products come from? How would the next billion get even basic tools? I can’t imagine you actually live in accordance with this radical view that extracting resources from the Earth is “raping” it. Do you only buy used products? Do you get around without the use of fossil fuels? I’m guessing not.
<blockquote>”Udemy is another favourite; they are democratizing education by cutting out the institution and helping people learn in a structured way that goes deeper than Googling a query, giving anyone with a smartphone access to a Stanford level of education.”</blockquote>
Broadening access to the information component of education isn’t new — a number of elite universities have already made their lectures freely available online. But the democratizing effect of this is rather limited: the value of a Stanford education isn’t in the information it imparts, but in its signaling value, and that signaling value comes from Stanford’s exclusivity.
@famebook It’s instructive to compare unemployment rates in Germany and the U.S. today. We have the worst unemployment in generations, and Germany has its lowest unemployment rate since its reunification two decades ago. We’re at the cutting edge of social media innovation, and they’re at the cutting edge of industrial innovation.
While the author makes some good points, his outlook is tainted by his politics (re: Airbnb “stop to the raping of Earth’s limited resources”). Considering his prejudices, it is not surprising to me that he has not hit on what is the most likely reason that world changing innovations are rare; it is government regulation. How can we have great healthcare and health services innovations when the area is so heavily regulated and controlled? The same goes for the communication sector (FCC) and the energy sector while the govt is choosing its winners and starving any other innovations. Innovators reflexively avoid those areas that the government is antagonistic to. So, we are left with apps and gadgets focuses on entertainment and improving business processing.
In Bay Area, there is interesting stuff going on that is potentially world changing… Hubs, Global Social Venture Competition at Berkeley, start ups like Kiva, and lots of biotechs. Sure, the mainstream suffers from some of the disturbing symptoms you mention… but look on the edges and eddies, and you will find more worthy entrepreneurs to support.
As an example, check out the Unreasonable Institute pitches at the HubSF next Monday & Tuesday. #unreasonable2011
@David Pinsen – Yep, we’re in an awful mess and I think the examples you refer to in technology and manufacturing are in spite of the last tech bubble and an economic meltdown. Wouldn’t it be great to focus on preventing those circumstances again, rather than assuming more of the same will get us out of the hole.
Hermione – if you are looking for people who are changing the world why didn’t you interview Kevin Jones from SOCAP or Vinod Khosla? Why are you writing about Y Combinator and not Investors’ Circle?
One could argue that you are a “me too” journalist, chasing the rant du jour — Silicon Valley. If you do a basic Google search on the term ‘impact investing’ you’ll find what you claim to be looking for.
@Hermione Way
Hermione – if you are looking for people who are changing the world why didn’t you interview Kevin Jones from SOCAP or Vinod Khosla? Why are you writing about Y Combinator and not Investors’ Circle or Inner City Advisors?
One could argue that you are a “me too” journalist, chasing the rant du jour — Silicon Valley. If you do a basic Google search on the term ‘impact investing’ you’ll find what you claim to be looking for. Silicon Valley is the leader in the sector and Boston is a close second.
@lilibalfour I have interviewed Vinod!
@hermioneway Why is he not part of the story?
Sorry, ‘her’ politics and ‘her’ prejudices
@Paul Hudnut I would really like to attend that event and see the startups – can you email me? hermione@thenextweb.com
Politics and the software industry are as linked as any other industry and politics; the regulators hold the control. The fact that regulators and legislators aren’t “supporting” green initiatives or healthcare initiatives should be irrelevant when considering an idea. Ideas don’t strike only in the areas of available monies; they strike where people are thinking. Right now, greed abounds, and in a shitty economy, everyone is looking out for themselves. It’s a dangerous infection to transmit to the graduating generation(s), as they learn that they need to horde and watch out for theirs and them more so than the rest of their human colleagues. Hence the get-rich-quick ideas. What a waste! Instead of inventing more social networks, we could be curing diseases, reducing roadblocks to green technology, and fixing broken infrastructure systems. At the end of the day, an engineer is an engineer; we are problem solvers. It’s time for us to get out of our cozy boxes with our pacifying gadgets and cupcakes and do something. The author makes this point clear, and honestly, it’s refreshing. It’s not said enough.
To the flame war that has ensued and will continue after my comments, I’m sure: stop trying to separate politics and human issues from daily life requirements. One commenter (possibly many) ridicules the author for the phrase “raping the earth of its resources”, offering a “you do it too” style response. This is completely non-constructive. Apply categorical imperatives to your statements before saying them. If everyone did shitty things and sat around saying, “well, you do it too”, we’d all crash and burn at an exponential rate. We can’t accomplish things with this kind of mentality. No, it wouldn’t be a sad world without factories and mass production, it would just be a world without iPhones and other non-essential gadgets. If the argument had been made for medical equipment, well, sure, that’s reasonable. And that’s why these things – like everything – are not simply black and white. It’s not “all production!” or “no production!” it’s “produce what we NEED, not what we want.” This is my problem with Silicon Valley at the moment. It’s producing so much of what we want (some of us), and very little of what we need. Great minds, effort, time and money are going towards pointless human narcissism. (Look what we can make! COOL!) All of the investors that were screwing the country over with their mortgage horseplay have now moved to the relatively safer waters of silicon valley. Doesn’t that tell you something?
that’s what entreprenuers do – we believe in a vision & way to solve a problem – no matter how many others are doing it. How many mob movies had been made before The Godfather came along or wizardry books written before Harry Potter was put to pen? It’s a matter of doing something different and better. I am betting my kids future on a photo sharing startup – yes, it’s a crowded space – but a photo is the new status message. (Tweet with a thousand words :) so there is lots of room for innovation – go check out http://www.streamzoo.com
I regret (a little) pointing out the author’s implicit politics, but it clearly shapes her conclusions. @akisma, your statements about greed are silly. Everyone is greedy in that you cannot make a living without a profit and who is to say what is too much profit? Are you saying Gates does not deserve his billions? Nor Jobs or Zuckerberg? C’mon! Get past that is what I’m trying to explain. If you invent cold fusion, you should be a trillionaire. To the inventor should go the spoils.
If you want to create a green technology, go do it and more power to you. But what if an entrepreneur engineered a way to use petroleum in a manner that triples the BTU output and nearly eliminates the emissions? It would be blocked because govt does not want petroleum solutions to succeed.
My point is, govt regulations do not simply seek to accomplish safety, they choose the winners and if you know your idea is effectively illegal by govt fiat, then why invest your time there? If you can feed your family making apps because that is all the environment rewards, then you are not greedy.
Judging silicon valley in the scope of not seeing govt regulation as a a big part of the problem means an incomplete study of the perceived lack of innovation.
If you strongly but objectively disagreed with this article, drop me an email zee[at]thenextweb.com.
I agree about the negative effects of exit strategies on innovation. I’ve been preaching that good businesses “earn profit by creating value” for years. Quick exits can earn a profit for some but create no value. There were many others @FOWA this year that seemed to agree.
Don’t forget Medellin, Colombia…one of the strongest and talented tech hubs in South America. Great ideas like Kactoos.com.co are generating 300,000 registered users in just a few months.
@Zee It’s unethical to report on things in a way that didn’t happen. The one accurate statement was that there was a bbq. But, in terms of the “predictable back and forth”, I’m not sure where she gets that idea.
It’s totally cool if she wants to critique Silicon Valley. She won’t be the first one. But, based on her interpretation of what happened when I saw her there, it makes me really question her other sources and observations.
I strongly agree with the author. Definitely the focus of entrepreneurs going to the silicon valley is money and quick money to be precise. This inherently will bring along short sightedness in the ideas being nourished. The question I would ask is, should entrepreneurs be bearing the burdon of changing the world? May be not! Yes there is a trend and everyone seems tobe followng it, everyone wants to have a share of the best. World changing initiatives cannot happen overnight or by one idea, there is some sense of collectiveness and mutual nurturing that every small idea or initiative provides to the evolving big idea or initiative. So if you believe in the process of natural selection and evolution hten you would truely understand what I mean. There needs to be a shift in the focus from only money to making life simple and healthy for everyone on this planet.
This criticism of Silicon Valley could be an interesting contrarian argument, but coming from Hermione Way, has no credibility. Her fluffy, self-indulgent champagne journalism has never been more than a shallow glimpse into the tech world.
Hermione’s schoolgirl politics (“raping of Earth’s resources” etc) aren’t compatible with this debate.
She ought to consider the luminaries of technology that really are making the world a better place. People like Bill Gates for example. Raw capitalism is the only way he could have generated the wealth to tackle malaria. And look at him go.
To sit in an ivory tower and snipe at people making legitimate money is insidious.
There is -nothing- wrong with greed in business. Business exists to make money. End of story. The wealth that business generates can then go on to improve the quality of life for everyone. To suggest that business has a mandate to improve society directly is naive idealism. Socialism gone mad.
If you guys are begining to be aware of this scenario. I wondering what is next? Companies raising millions in few months and also closing down in a few more months?
And please, less of the bleeding-heart guilt trip, comparing poor African consumers to “greedy” American consumers.
Africa needs more capitalism, MORE of the lust for success and money that America has. It’s healthy. How else will Africa become self-sufficient and improve their quality of life without an economy of their own?
I think you are lucky to get 1% game changer ideas. This is a new generation and a new dot com bubble although not as big as the last bubble I’m sure.
If you get 1% game changers and 5% profitable ideas I’d say that’s about right.
Attacking real world problems would be nice but they will most likely take the short cut and go for quick profits and loose their stronghold as the #1 innovator. Silicon Valley is like IBM when MS came along. Way too cool.
at 500gallons we take our mission seriously. changing restaurants to adopt sustainability is not easy. we plan to do it one restaurant at a time. hope you can help too!
mahesh
http://www.500gallons.com
I’ve been in the valley looking for funding and I can tell Hermione is right. Investors and incubators always said: “that’s an extraordinary idea, but how are you going to make money out of it?”.
How are you supposed to INNOVATE if profitability is the main driver? Do you think Thomas Edison had a “market” for the light bulb right from the beginning? If the whole thing is about profitability, you better start a restaurant.
I’ve been in the valley looking for funding and I can tell Hermione is right. Investors and incubators always said: “that’s an extraordinary idea, but how are you going to make money out of it?”.
How are you supposed to INNOVATE if profitability is the main driver? Do you think Thomas Edison had a “market” for the light bulb right from the beginning? If the whole thing is about profitability, you better start a restaurant.
Sorry dude but kactoos sounds like the 57th clone of groupon
@Andrés Pachon Are we supposed to fund it just because you want to make it? Do you feel like you have a right to make it whether you can sell it or not? Perhaps it is your right to be given a grant from the public tax coffers that have no interest in your product or you because its your right as far as you see it. Does it hurt your self esteem to be told no by those financiers?
I don’t ever remember reading that Edison complained about a lack of funding and I doubt very much he’d sympathize with you.
PS: I truly wish you the best success, I just don’t know how you could have arrived at this entitled outlook.
@Arun Datta You could not be more wrong historically Arun. Great ideas are almost always the product of an individual’s brilliance, hard work and determination to succeed. Committees are good at improving them. The nature of the collective is to be bogged down in disagreement.
@Chris Beach Jeez, here it is, the quintessence of all economic problems of Africa. Why don’t you just tell us what the whole developing world needs, as you seem to be very well informed on the economic (I suspect social and cultural as well) needs of an entire continent. This is so lovely, I’m writing it down. You may want to consider tuning down the self-righteousness though. The depth of your 2-sentence analysis is striking compared to the article’s shallowness. Cheers!
One of the main danger for Silicon Valley is how the money is spent here sometimes. Or something like don’t get cash before real cash is generated, this kind of stuffs (or not that much). There is a limit for everything, even in Silicon Valley. It’s a magic place, but no one is immortal. And Barack can’t do anything with that.
Anything in your message other than trolling, Vera?
This is a genuinely insightful and refreshingly sober analysis. HW makes some excellent points. Interesting stuff!
@Vera Glavova @Chris Beach Vera, a person with the merest non-Keynsian economics education understands Chris just fine. Africa is suffering from too many do-gooders giving them hand-outs and controlling their options. This has resulted in conditions of dependency, not innovation. This echos my response below about what Hermione is missing about the situation in Silicon valley with a different scale of outcome but the political influences are still trying to control the outcomes instead of letting natural economic forces succeed. Africa is resource rich. Its people can benefit from more capital investment and far less political intrusion.
The biggest thing that resonated with me in your great article is not enough of these super smart young brains are trying to solve real world problems (that is such a great point). We get approached by a lot of companies (not just in the mid west but across the US) who cant generate revenue, cant even go to market let alone raise funds and they keep wondering why they wont get any traction.
I am glad someone from outside the US recognized this. I feel that all the non US brains are focusing on solving real world problems and we are falling behind every day.
Great post!
Your points on real world experience is the entire problem. For a young developer there they simply have had no chance to experience problems that can be solved. As talented as many of them are you can’t expect them to have much of any business experience to expoit. To me game changing ideas are those that solve business problems instead of social networking problems popular culture seems to focus on.
Working in the manufacturing industry we invent many local “game changing” systems to improve efficiency and profitibility to stay many steps ahead of the competition. Unfortunately this industry is very traditional in some respects where software is viewed as a comodity. It’s simply sometimes not a very sexy idea in the eyes of many inside the industry and certainly not outside. This will change as more talent solves problems and shows the effects of their intellect when given a real problem to solve.
We have all the tools and brains available but we are focused on the wrong ways to implement technology. Out of engineering school like myself you believe you know it all, I quickly learned I didn’t know anything but I could learn it, this is what education really teaches. We need smart experience to direct activities and the resolve to see it through. As IT professionals we need to feel the responsibility of show casing our innovations to business through technology, not just because it’s a cool idea, those don’t create wealth for an organization or a society.
@Brian White I agree with you 110% in the sense that not everything should be funded. However, the problem is that SV promotes itself as an Innovation hub where GREAT IDEAS matter; but the truth is, a great idea won’t matter if it doesn’t have a GREAT BUSINESS MODEL. Actually, the latter has been so top-prioritized, that a lot of NOT innovative startups have been funded in the SV (which is @hermioneway point) Isn’t this contradictory?
So the question is: Is the SV an Innovation hub or a Business hub? And, is the whole ecosystem aligned to such vision?
You don’t understand the point. If the end goal is ‘money’ rather than innovating new things to improve life on this planet then most likely the motivating factor is flawed.
Your ‘right’ to make something does not come from those who wish to profit off you in hope to prop themselves up. Money is worthless, its the ideas that move us forward and those who will them to be.
“I just don’t know how you could have arrived at this entitled outlook”
– That is ad hominem and it seems you are the one with a ‘self esteem’ issue that needs resolve.
@zezba9000 You got it. In @hermioneway words: “It’s never about the technology or impact it’s having, it’s about the game of entrepreneurship; getting users, funding and exiting as quickly as you can.”
I’ve read the article and comments and commented myself. I find that I stand out from many of you because there seems to be this consensus that you can control the innovation outcome. Certainly a concentration of talent like Silicon Valley improves the chances for innovation. This has been true throughout history from Athens to Alexandria to Florence and on up through the present day. But you cannot control the outcome and bemoaning the small accomplishments is the worst kind of elitist psychology. It’s also bad reverse psychology to put out this kind of statement as a way of guilting the professional innovators to strive for only worthy and politically rewarded accomplishments.
We are living inside a communications revolution. This is an amazing thing to be a beneficiary of.
Returning to the historical view, innovations were fortunate to occur only after several decades or centuries. Now they happen every few months but that isn’t enough?
There’s nothing wrong with Silicon Valley that couldn’t be helped by some good old capitalistic competition. As I posted previously, recognize the negative impact of the regulations and political subsidizing of solutions that are not competitive and you will see Silicon Valley come alight with new innovation.
Most of it’s products are free and not profitable so far, but they are definitely driving innovation, pushing the industry to the next level, and making life easier in some way. Yes, I’m talking about Google. And here’s the perfect example: the “driverless” car (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0I5DHOETFE). In their words, they want to make “the traffic safer, more efficient and more pleasurable”. How are they going to make money out of it? They just don’t know and, so far, they don’t care.
@zezba9000 I came on strong and Andres was very gracious, but that does not mean that I stand corrected and involving my self esteem seems to be trying to encourage a defensive response.
What I disagree with is the implication that money is not a worthy goal. Is there any currency in innovation as its own reward? Money our medium of exchange. It’s the most flexible and ethical medium of exchange in all history. You can do ANYTHING with it. Money is not evil, it does what the person that earned it wants.
If you haven’t done so, you should consider reading Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand explains money in a way that dissolves the prejudices are society has formed against it. I recommend at least reading this snippet from the book; it changed by own perception http://www.working-minds.com/money.htm
@Andrés Pachon @zezba9000 @hermioneway Andres, the point you reiterate only reinforces my own points that the govt regulations and policies are more heavily influencing SV behavior than Hermione understands or acknowledges. Why are investors getting in and out as fast as they can? Because govt has gotten a lot of traction from being antagonistic to the investor. Due to a few bad players on Wall Street there is a common perception that investors are all bad players. This has created an environment of fear. What would you do if you had a few dollars to invest or were responsible for investing your clients money? In the present environment, you seek to guarantee a profitable return. It is wrong to blame this on the investor. Hermione recognizes the symptoms, but I disagree on her diagnosis.
@Andrés Pachon The driverless car can and will revolutionize the taxi industry. While our policy makers have been funneling money at antiquated economic failures like rail based solutions (light rail, trolleys and so-called high speed rail), driverless taxis will be a cost effective economic alternative. But we need many policy changes to allow this to happen.
@Andrés Pachon As regards apps being free, this is not entirely true. The apps improve the experience of the hardware; the smart phone, the tablet computer are improved by the complementary apps. The apps drive more innovation into the phones and tablets. These products are improving our lives professionally and personally. Now dozens of players are getting into the handheld and tablet/slate business driving down prices and improving the user experience.
Have you seen the YouTube next generation products planned by Corning (search on Gorilla glass)? Every surface in the home will potentially be a telecom portal for TV, internet and communication source with secondary and tertiary functions as sources of heat and illumination that will revolutionize our homes in the ways Hermione seems to be seeking. The ability to Telecommute and reduce road traffic and emissions are being directly improved by these overlooked and reflexively maligned phone apps.
@judy shapiro burnt affectation, much?
Even after 12 years in the US and through a couple of bubbles, I am surprised how easy it is for some unproven graduate to get a chest of money for an app showing you where your friends are having their next beer.
Unfortunately it doesn’t surprise me that these so called companies get sponsored without any revenue plans what so ever, while real startups with real business plans and real revenue plans can’t get funded. As you pointed out it is all about the exit so if you can create enough of a buzz it doesn’t matter that you are not making any money because “someone” will buy you.
Thx for the link. I understand the position you take but disagree with it. You are right, I do think money is ‘NOT’ a worthy goal at this point in history (at least if its your primary goal). The current economic model and its product is becoming outdated and inaccurate when it comes to numerically tagging value onto ideas, innovation, people and resources.
The best way to explain my position is to respond with a link as you did for me. Because where we attain our information defines us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI
@zezba9000 This is maybe the most frightening video I’ve seen in my adult life. You realize this is Marxism warmed over? Central planning. Central control of supply trying to ignore demand. Decision making by the scientists this time rather than politicians as if the scientists are immune to the seduction of absolute power. Scare tactics about limited resources to control people’s behavior.
What happens to the people that disagree? Gulag? Concentration camps? Who decides how many children a couple are allowed? Who controls the eventual eugenics programs to ensure genetic diseases are eradicated? Who decides the correct size apartment that is suitable to our needs? Who decides how much education is enough and what constitutes education? zezba are you serious? There cannot be liberty in order for this to succeed.
This is not a sustainable model. It can only be forced on the population.
You already have my recommendation. Good luck to you and I fervently PRAY that the Zeitgeist movement never ever gains any traction. Thank you for alerting me to evil in its latest disguise.
Agreed: Check out our companies :) http://startx.stanford.edu
Yes, scalability, big exits, and big profits are actually good things. They indicate that others in society also value what you are doing.
“Cloning” is not always a bad strategy. In 10 years, Groupon might be toast. Facebook was in many ways a Friendster/MySpace clone. And how about Google, Gmail, Google Finance, Google Maps…?
A “cloud-based enterprise solution” is automatically without redeeming qualities? I urge you to study how business productivity leads to better living standards. Just because it happens behind the scenes and isn’t sexy doesn’t make it less valuable.
Your definition of “real-world problems” is really “my favorite pet problems”. I’m sure that when Twitter launched you thought it was about as useful as “finding the nearest tofu cupcake”. Go start a company and then come back and tell us all what to do.
@Scott Banister Well said, Scott. The market has a way of winnowing out the wheat from the chaff. And, with reference to the original post, 2 out of 200 companies being world changers is hardly bad odds.
Of course, we’ve seen this all before back in the late 90s, it just sounds like our second “dotcom bubble” is in full swing.
I think you guys are confusing things — the problem seems to be that SV tech is becoming more short-sighted; in its time horizon to be useful and in its time horizon to be profitable.
Does anyone have any insight to changes in the funding source composition in SV?
Its sad that you would think this is Marxism, the GOP handbook isnt going to have an answer for this one. This is all about human “DEMAND” on the resources of the planet and how we can work “together” (rather then fight over) there limitations. You do realize the GDP goes up when people are sick or we are at war right? This in itself is a clear indication that a foundational peace of our current economic structure is flawed, and I would put my money on “money” is part of the problem..(pun intended).
“What happens to the people that disagree”
– This is the biggest misunderstanding I think. Its not about ‘WHO’ its about ‘HOW’. We use the scientific method to determine the closet approximation of reality. This method was used in all technology you see today, really technology is the product of the environment the scientific method produces. If a child could prove something to be true, then it should be considered as such. If people disagree you prove what the best known answer is. There are no kings, presidents or dictators…No one owns the Moon, Mars or Galaxy ect.. so no one should own the land on this planet either. There would be things like research groups for different topics using the scientific method to solve problems we see today. Fighting with eachother does not bring about new things, working together does.
We need “Science” not “Politics”.
“Concentration camps?”
– How did you get this this idea?
“Who decides how many children a couple are allowed?”
– Education my friend is a big factor here. When people are educated on the reality of there environment they will be self governing in the appropriate way. Also it used to be thought the earth could only support up to 3 billion ppl, now we have over 6 billion. Technology enables us to support more of what we demand.
“Who controls the eventual eugenics programs to ensure genetic diseases are eradicated?”
– Just because an idea is different then the excepted norm, does not mean it involves killing off others for someone else’s self interest. That sounds like something out the of the NWO handbook.
“Who decides the correct size apartment that is suitable to our needs?”
– Again, its not about WHO its about HOW.
“Who decides how much education is enough and what constitutes education? ”
– Learning should never stop as the environment never stops to change. You teach children about what we can prove and how we thought we proved it, also what we hypothesize might be true. Mentoring them along the way, so that they can build off something concrete.
“zezba are you serious? There cannot be liberty in order for this to succeed.”
– I am very serious. This liberty you speak of.. do we have it now?? If so I would like to know how. If not, then what truly is at fault, bad dictators or bad environmental products??
“This is not a sustainable model. It can only be forced on the population.”
– You can already see some of it coming to be. As technology enables previously slave labor(fallow the carrot) jobs to become automated and as the internet alongside other things such as 3D printers with the sharing of openSource, we can see the current model will not work. Over the past 3 years a lot of what you hear in the news about jobs is how we can bring back the shovel ready jobs…I mean rly?? This comes from a misunderstanding about how the world is changing and why this kind of thinking is so ridiculous.
“Thank you for alerting me to evil in its latest disguise.”
– “Evil” means “Morally bad or wrong”, but morals in a scientific term define working together for something greater then yourself. This is NOT Evil.
If you want a more in depth explanation of the “dark evil” learking in the corners watch::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Silicon Valley gives people what they want – social networks, Groupon clones, photo sharing apps, time wasting games, etc. There is demand for these and Silicon Valley is happy to provide the supply.
@zezba9000 As my link should have helped indicate, my answers are Libertarian, not typical GOP neo-Conservatism. Scientists are not saints. They are as corruptible as anyone and commonly more arrogant. Everything your you tube video proposes has been proposed before to ascend other despots to power. I can see the ideas your plan espouses to be seductive, but there are no saints to carry it off.
Good luck to you personally, but not this plan.
@Brian White “Scientists are not saints”
– I agree that 100%, but this was not the point. The point was we should be using the “Scientific method”, not “Politics” to make critical choices. You are making “Scientists” a loaded word I think.
“Everything your you tube video proposes has been proposed before”
– Even if that were true (and its not), I would have to ask,.. is the environment and its people the same as it was in the past? This is obviously no. So why then do we believe the same methods will work for us in all points of time, I think history proves they won’t? Repeating the same thing, over and over expecting different results is insanity. I just see to much insanity in the world and am looking for logical resolution to it.
Anyway ill let you be, and good luck to you as well. :)
@zezba9000 Your Zeitgeist solution requires central planning aka statism whether you concede it is actual Marxism or not is argumentative. Marx only envisioned the authoritative government as a temporary condition, but it never moves on because people in power have no incentive to release it. The story has only evolved for new listeners.
I’m afraid you are already convinced, but you have an exaggerated perception of the finite condition of our resources and the delicate state of the planet. These are effective scare tactics and based upon scientific speculation. If you are going to call on the scientific method, remember the rigor that separates a theory from a fact. Science is already being abused to justify ridiculous policies like making incandescent light bulbs illegal. I have nothing but disdain for this kind of so-called science and I will not suffer a system that opens the door to all decisions being made this way. Science will continue to be abused to control resources and supply and make humans dependent upon the state. Nothing is new essentially as I suggested.
I suspect you can deluge me with web sites to back up the scientific consensus on climate change and other anthropomorphic abuses. Remember that consensus is not a part of the scientific method either. I am sure I can counter your examples. I was once persuaded by the apparent impact of humans on the weather but no longer. This is not to say that I deny pollution exists and correcting that. There is ample evidence that US has lead the world in correcting the early industrial age problems; cleaner air, water and land.
You say that we need to stop doing the same thing? I agree. Central planning has failed. It failed in the USSR, Germany and is failing in the US. Zeitgeist (even the name is ominous) will too. Changing the people in charge and driving the final nails into our disdained Constitution will not change where central planning always leads; and entitled class and a dependent class.
We need a distributed solution based upon personal liberty. I have found the fellows at http://www.mises.org to be very instructive. I recommend them highly. I took the time to listen to you you tube. Perhaps you’d humor me as well.
Godspeed.
@Ciprian Pătrulescu Well actually, today’s true social network came from Harvard,
theres some valid points there – the inanity of many plays in the name of greed is certainly present. but, i think the end of the story is that it takes a lot of cloth to make a great suit.
lots of defensive justifications of “greed” here. the problem with inane apps lies in the culture that demands them as well as the suppliers of this demand. you’ve all seen the image of a snake eating its own tail. a story as old as humankind.
lots of defensive justifications. the source of inane apps also lies in the culture that demands them. you’ve all seen the image of a snake eating its own tail – a story as old as humankind.
@hermioneway Awesome article!! Just loved the opinions & observations it has & that it spawned! I live here. Why, if there is so much money here, are our libraries shutting down and schools firing needed staff? Can’t these brilliant folks help break down the issues there?
@Hermione Way I did not see any notice of the tech scene happening in China. This area is really ripe for innovation as it’s a growing economie. The problem here is the tech duplication…ie taking tech ideas from the valley and reproducing them in Chinese. None the less, lots of space over here for new things happening. Look at Weibo/QQ. Although not startups they are surely more innovative than twitter.
Spot on and agree with lots of issues mentioned in your post – Just for the record, the reason for most clones in start-ups are racing to be acquired by the big players – Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Oracle, and SAP – One example that gives a clue to such, Google deal making Mathematics – Eric Schmidt, chief executive of Google, speaks to reporters at the Sun Valley conference stating on how they go about calculating to purchase a start-up: “So what’s a year worth? We then calculate the value of the team plus the value of the year, and that’s the amount of money we’re willing to pay for the company,” he said. “These are $10 million, $20 million, $30 million kind of deals.” He added, the acquisition model “at Google is driven pretty much bottoms-up.” “It’s a product manager who has a problem; they can’t solve the problem,” he said, “and we have a team that goes out and does that.”
I don’t think you got him right. He didn’t, at any point, imply that ideas should be generated, nor vetted, by committes. He only said that we should stop considering money as the supreme goal and realize that they are only a tool. A very usefull tool but still a tool.
This guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihaly_Csikszentmihalyi says that the best results are reached by those who derive their happines from the work itself and not from the financial rewards.
There is another guy, Max Weber, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism, who said that protestant countries had a more succesfull brand of capitalism because for them a craft was an end to itself and not a way to get rich.
Af course we need compensation for our work in order to buy food and provide shelter for our family and is only fair that the better working to be better paid but if we we forget that in the long run happines is a matter of remembering the good things done in our life and not the number of zeroes in our banking accounts then we’ll end up exausted trying to copy sombody else’s succes instead of trying to build our own.
You say something about libertarianism. I live in post communist Romania. Some twenty five years ago there was a joke here but you had to be very carefull about whom you shared it with:
“Communism is OK and so is capitalism. The problem lies with the communists and with the capitalists”.
Libertarianism is also OK. The problem is that in order to have liberty you have to have a certain ‘level field’ and certain individual authonomy. If the state is so weak that it is no longer able to maintain that then the most succesful capitalist will eventually control everything and there will be no diference from the Stalinist Rusia: a very centralized state where where all the decisions were made by one person.
That state colapsed exactely because of that sooner or later every body makes mistakes and if somebody is not checked by those around him, by the ‘free market’, he will go on making bigger and bigger mistakes. And nothing, but his own demise, can stop him anymore.
Some people are in this for the money and/or to make the world a better place, thats ok with me. But If you got the money I think a good investment will be one that make the world a better place for you and the other ones who live in it, and don’t forget your sons and the other people that will live here in the future.
Well actually, it came from Exeter. Suck it Harvard! :)
@Scott Banister spoken like a true entrepreneur – I hate people who comment from sidelines without having ever quit a nice cushy job and gone after a dream