There have always been startups whose first products seemed like quick hacks (including some that went on to be extremely successful). There have always been st

There have always been startups whose first products seemed like quick hacks (including some that went on to be extremely successful). There have always been startups that seemed more derivative than inspired. (And a few of these turned out to be revolutionary, because even if 98% of the idea was a ripoff, the last 2% was based on a deep understanding of the product being 'copied' that nobody, especially pundits, understood the significance of) The only difference the author can point to is that more people are doing startups, more startups are getting funded, and there is more of a supporting infrastructure to help startups (incubators, hackathons, blogs, etc). Certainly starting a startup has become more socially acceptable. While this may make the act of entrepreneurship less "rebellious", this is not necessarily the kind of rebellion that makes for disruptive startups. Whether I get nods of approval or worried looks when I tell my non-startup friends I quit my big company job to start a startup has little bearing on how disruptive my idea is. The article sounds more like a hipster's complaint than anything else ("I was into startups before they were cool!")