25 ms·

I think an alternative way of looking at is that in a way "the deck is stacked" not in favor of start ups. I remember how in the late nineties no one worth thei

I think an alternative way of looking at is that in a way "the deck is stacked" not in favor of start ups. I remember how in the late nineties no one worth their salt would ever agree to work for a behemoth because a start up was more fun, more opportunity to make money and learn something. Not sure whether it's the protracted poor economic period, or policy, or global trade, or all of those things, but I do believe that the world is better off favoring small over large and we should strive in that general direction.

AStellersSeaCow 10y ago
I agree that the shine has worn off startups, but don't agree with the reasoning. Startups were great in the 90s because VCs and investors were desperately hurling money at businesses that they didn't even remotely understand. Why work long hours in a stuffy traditional office at MSFT or IBM when you could make more at a carnival-like startup where you spend more time playing foosball than working? Nowadays that equation is somewhat reversed. Most startups expect crushingly long hours, and typically pay considerably less than the tech giants and have vastly lower total compensation. There's still the slim chance of a huge payday, but the expected earnings are far lower. And while there's still plenty of "keep doubling down on legacy tech" at the giants, there's also way more genuine innovation than there used to be, whereas startups are the output of tech industry magnetic poetry sets as often as not: "instagram for urban farmers", etc. In the end I also agree that we should push for facilitating more new companies, and the article underlines a lot of the hurdles we need to lower or remove. The big questions in my mind: whether that can be done in a way that doesn't just further empower the big established players, and whether anyone has the political willpower to hamstring successful, generally well-liked companies to increase competition.
- roymurdock 10y ago
  This is a good observation. I'd wager that an increasing number of startups these days are executed with an acquisition by BIGCO as their exit goal (inversely proportional to the frequency of startup IPOs). The startup is a more involved test than a whiteboard exercise, as it credibly demonstrates that you have the management skills and network to assemble a team and onboard a few customers. I think facilitating the creation of new, smaller companies is less about removing hurdles which, in the case of tax/legal regulations are mostly there as a (failing) mechanism of equitably redistributing wealth; it's more about waiting for (or moving towards) the explosion of the next paradigm-shifting tech platform that will actually allow the next generation of weirdos and mavericks to build/deliver supremely useful products/services. Color me skeptical on Facebook/Snapchat/Twitter...but I think we'll look back on this period as a time when biohackers/wetware were truly ahead of their time.

AStellersSeaCow 10y ago

I agree that the shine has worn off startups, but don't agree with the reasoning. Startups were great in the 90s because VCs and investors were desperately hurling money at businesses that they didn't even remotely understand. Why work long hours in a stuffy traditional office at MSFT or IBM when you could make more at a carnival-like startup where you spend more time playing foosball than working? Nowadays that equation is somewhat reversed. Most startups expect crushingly long hours, and typically pay considerably less than the tech giants and have vastly lower total compensation. There's still the slim chance of a huge payday, but the expected earnings are far lower. And while there's still plenty of "keep doubling down on legacy tech" at the giants, there's also way more genuine innovation than there used to be, whereas startups are the output of tech industry magnetic poetry sets as often as not: "instagram for urban farmers", etc. In the end I also agree that we should push for facilitating more new companies, and the article underlines a lot of the hurdles we need to lower or remove. The big questions in my mind: whether that can be done in a way that doesn't just further empower the big established players, and whether anyone has the political willpower to hamstring successful, generally well-liked companies to increase competition.

roymurdock 10y ago
This is a good observation. I'd wager that an increasing number of startups these days are executed with an acquisition by BIGCO as their exit goal (inversely proportional to the frequency of startup IPOs). The startup is a more involved test than a whiteboard exercise, as it credibly demonstrates that you have the management skills and network to assemble a team and onboard a few customers. I think facilitating the creation of new, smaller companies is less about removing hurdles which, in the case of tax/legal regulations are mostly there as a (failing) mechanism of equitably redistributing wealth; it's more about waiting for (or moving towards) the explosion of the next paradigm-shifting tech platform that will actually allow the next generation of weirdos and mavericks to build/deliver supremely useful products/services. Color me skeptical on Facebook/Snapchat/Twitter...but I think we'll look back on this period as a time when biohackers/wetware were truly ahead of their time.