3 ms·
The premise of the article is that because there are so many fluff start-ups, there are so few non-fluff start-ups. Now, for the sake of debate, let's agree th
by zaidf 16y ago
The premise of the article is that because there are so many fluff start-ups, there are so few non-fluff start-ups.
Now, for the sake of debate, let's agree there are lots of fluff start-ups. But does that mean there are fewer non-fluff start-ups? I don't think so. It's a false dichotomy. Just because you have more Zynga-like companies does not mean you don't have more start-ups today than a decade ago going after cancer.
This is the most common flaw I find in arguments related to this.
- davidw 16y agoThe label I think you're looking for is "zero-sum thinking". That there are only a fixed number of startups to go around, and if they're all off doing web stuff, there is no room for other fields of endeavor.
- zaidf 16y agoand if they're all off doing web stuff Obviously not the case. The fixed number could be going up for both. At once, there could be more web start-ups and so-called serious start-ups than previous years.
- davidw 16y ago> Obviously not the case. I agree, I was just stating what "zero-sum thinking is".
- Tichy 16y agoJust think why some countries are good in football, and others are good in baseball. It does make a difference what kind of sports is the most visible and prestigious - talent really does focus on those sports.