Talk. About. A. Troll. (edit: ah, no wonder. the author is fake steve jobs blogger)
This is almost as good as the article from the 90s making fun of the Internet and how useless it is.
...a place where smart kids arrive hoping to make an easy fortune building companies that seem, if not pointless, at least not as serious as, say, old-guard companies like HP, Intel, Cisco, and Apple.
"Easy fortune" huh? That's what you call those 15-20 hours days many founders pull? This writer owes an apology to the Valley.
Just another version of old dudes complaining about the new gen.
If you're not aware, most of the old guard companies pulled 15-20 hour days starting out too. And making a physical product is generally MUCH more frustrating than anything in web app land. Hurrying up and waiting, for a flawed product messed up by the machinists. Also much higher startup capital costs for anything nontrivial like semiconductors. Expensive equipment, office space, manufacturing space, all this stuff you need to start. Not just two or three guys with open source software working in a dorm.
Studying the physical sciences is also more mentally taxing than coding PHP. I've gotten paid for both. You can't compare designing aircraft in CAD and Excel (what I do) that could kill someone if done improperly, with setting up email verification for your social networking site. Not even close.
Nothing I said belittles the efforts of past Valley heroes.
As for it becoming cheaper to do a start-up now versus previously, well doh. That should not be an excuse to belittle today's start-ups as the author does so recklessly.
And where is the discussion headed anyways? I am sure it was harder for entrepreneurs in 1900 than 1950 on the whole.
Studying the physical sciences is also more mentally taxing than coding PHP.
You make it sound like that is all a start-up is: some php code. Most successful start-ups are a lot more than php code.
Also, having to walk ten miles before we had a means of transportation was more taxing than taking cars. What are we gonna do about that? Attack the whole world for not having it as hard as when folks had to walk 10 miles?
Studying the physical sciences is also more mentally taxing than coding PHP. I've gotten paid for both. You can't compare designing aircraft in CAD and Excel (what I do) that could kill someone if done improperly, with setting up email verification for your social networking site. Not even close.
You are not going to just go anywhere with just a social networking site. It's going to be much harder than that.
There is quite a bit of software in modern aircraft and I guarantee you that the guys that write it and review it are just as aware of the fact that their software could kill if done improperly.
It's very easy to think that your role (the designer) is the crucial one, but in the aircraft construction business there are very few jobs that require a less then 'mission critical' attitude.
Before our arrogant, materialistic society hits the next iceberg or 'crash', it would be wise to create technology for the long-term survival of humanity and habitability of Earth. What problems are more important to solve?
"The risk is that by focusing an entire generation of bright young entrepreneurs on such silly things, we’ll fall behind in creating the fundamental building blocks of our economy. The transistor and the integrated circuit gave rise to the last half century of prosperity. But what comes next? "If we distract people with the lure of easy money, with making companies that don’t solve anything hard, we’re going to wind up derailing the thing that has been driving our economy," Myhrvold says."
Indeed. He's going on about how modern silicon valley, and to be honest much of the rest of the world, is geared around the short term. How start-ups are now light and fluffy, with a focus on making the world worse - by getting their users addicted, in their millions, to menial activities.
I have been thinking about this recently, should the start-ups - which rely heavily on user addiction - be treated as gambling outlets, and therefore be regulated and watched closely? It would at least discourage that form of start-up.
> should the start-ups - which rely heavily on user addiction - be treated as gambling outlets, and therefore be regulated and watched closely?
No, definitely not.
You might as well outlaw television for entertainment and the writing of fiction and poetry.
Everybody gets to decide how they spend their time, that's an individuals freedom, and every company gets to decide what product they want to make.
In the past companies have worked hard to give us more productivity and therefore more leisure time. New companies have stepped up that capitalize on that leisure time.
The times when people had to be productive (in the developed part of the world, that is) every waking hour is fortunately behind us, and bringing it back by force is not a solution.
For ever addict there are 100's or even 1000's of 'normal' users of those same services, you can't penalize everybody because of an inability for self-control in a minority of the population.
"Facebook" or "Wow" or any other so called addictive product is only as addictive as you let it be.
In Buddhism, a lama assumes responsibility over his followers. The followers have a responsbility to hold the lama in check from becoming an egomaniac.
Startup CEOs should assume a similar responsibility over their users. If the entrepreneur really cared about the people, not the money, he/she wouldn't have a problem. If you watch how previous generations built their wealth, most of them did it by providing value and service for a fair price. Most of today's startups care about what's the new gold rush and how to get the most out. What really matters is how do you create the most value for society. If you do that, you will live a fuller life and people will respect you. Money usually follows if you stick to your principles.
Yep. Though, I think there are excellent start-ups out there, who are innovating for the long term - but those aren't the start-ups that attract the easy money, publicity and hype. At least not at the moment.
(b) we know what today's entrepreneurs are focused on
(c) we know what we are currently focused on will not help us achieve (a)
Counter:
(a) we don't really know what comes next
(b) heck, we don't really know what all stuff folks are working on. Just because there are two well-known start-ups called Twitter and Facebook does not mean there aren't dozens of start-ups doing stuff with hardware and medicine. Don't blame the media's love affair with Twitter and Facebook to entrepreneurs not working on challenging stuff.
(c) Lastly, these things the author sees as play may very well have a key role in solving the problems of tomorrow.
If we distract people with the lure of easy money...
The dot com bubble is back. You can get seed funding to the tune of 3/4 of a million dollars for any mediocre idea right now. If that is proving hard to accomplish in Silicon Valley, move your operations to NYC, where there is more money and the investors will invest in anything.
Yes, and hopefully it won't last too long. You just know the silly money is flowing again when you look at some of the stuff that gets funded and the amounts that are thrown at it.
It's sad, really that lessons from the past do not seem to stay learned, this cycle of extreme waste followed by extreme frugality isn't good for anybody.
A.) It's called intuition for a reason. No one in the current paradigm sees the next one out, except maybe the brave scientist or artist who is peering over the horizon.
B.) He or I never said there aren't ANY startups that are solving real problems, just that most are starting out chasing the shallow end of potential. Much of it can be attributed to people having to find a way to survive in a rapidly changing world.
C.) You can use all the rhetoric you want, the bottom line is: the more minds there are collaborating to realize human potential, eliminate needless suffering, and healing our planet, the better. There is simply nothing else worth pursuing that has lasting value.
...the more minds there are collaborating to realize human potential, eliminate needless suffering, and healing our planet, the better. There is simply nothing else worth pursuing that has lasting value.
Please explain how in the early days of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs you'd know that they were going to help humanity?
The whole heal-the-planet argument is very different from do-something-challenging. You and the author of the article seem to be confusing the two. Which one do you really want more entrepreneurs to work on?
Even in hindsight, it would be hard to see how the top 50 of Valley from the 60s and 70s were helping the planet heal.
Other than Bill Gates, everyone else is pretty up in the air as far them contributing to our planet. And even Bill G, it wasn't until he made all that money and decided to give it all away that he truly started having impact.
Now you can sight examples of how the iPod saved a life here and there and how Windows gave rise to the tech revolution etc...in which case, I'd counter that Facebook and Twitter have just as much potential and are in their very early days.
1.) They are not different at all. We have to 'do something' to fix our civilization's problems or 'heal our planet'. That doing part is where startups come into the picture.
2.) You ever read Steve Wozniack's autobiography? If you haven't, you don't know the full story. They believed a PC could do a lot more than just crunch numbers, it could realize creative and scientific potential. Steve J. believed computers were 'bicycles for the mind'. To this day, Apple is still focused on creating hardware and software that make life simpler and allows people to create easier. Whether they do or not, is all up to them...
3.) Bill G is not the only one, he is just the most famous one. This generation will yield many more scientists inspired to create technology that serves Earth.
They believed a PC could do a lot more than just crunch numbers, it could realize creative and scientific potential. Steve J. believed computers were 'bicycles for the mind'.
You seen the slide decks or talked to the founders in the Valley? If you are going on vision, trust me, today's founders are not short on it.
Now, how good of a job the founders are doing in bringing their vision to life? We don't know and won't know for a while. At best, we should hold judgement IMO.
This generation will yield many more scientists inspired to create technology that serves Earth.
May be. But that could also mean that you no longer need to be a scientist to build something that serves earth. You could just be some econ grad who gets an idea for a micro-lending site and launches Kiva.
Also, it's unfair that you see Facebook's mission of connecting people or Twitter's role during emergencies in a different realm to Apple making computing simpler.
This is almost as good as the article from the 90s making fun of the Internet and how useless it is.
...a place where smart kids arrive hoping to make an easy fortune building companies that seem, if not pointless, at least not as serious as, say, old-guard companies like HP, Intel, Cisco, and Apple.
"Easy fortune" huh? That's what you call those 15-20 hours days many founders pull? This writer owes an apology to the Valley.
Just another version of old dudes complaining about the new gen.