4 ms·

I see a point made in this article (and other comments in this thread) that I'd like to semi-debunk: it's a widely held opinion that deviating from the "web/ent

by Klonoar 16y ago

I see a point made in this article (and other comments in this thread) that I'd like to semi-debunk: it's a widely held opinion that deviating from the "web/entertainment" track is too difficult and full of BS you'd have to deal with, but this argument is a complete and utter cop-out. Innovation is a concept that sits above that; if people don't aim to get above the difficulty/BS barrier, nobody ever will, and innovation will never happen in those areas. Yes, maybe Silicon Valley isn't the area to do innovative work in the nuclear sector, but there is absolutely no reason that we couldn't see more startups based around furthering education, or helping to solve homeless problems, or any number of real world problems that we all see and deal with on a daily basis. The companies that actually try and change the world around us deserve massive amounts of respect, and we should be glorifying them far more than we do (and far more than the startups we generally see discussed). So many of them won't make it but at least they tried to do something worthwhile to the world around us instead of releasing yet another photo sharing app for a smartphone.

ctdonath 16y ago
Remember Doom? Quake? Commander Keen? etc., all well in the "Angry Birds" category the author derides? It's the money from those which let their creator indulge in Armadillo Aerospace, contributing to getting mankind off this risky rock.
- MatthewPhillips 16y ago
  Bingo. A strong exit on a web startup is a great way to fund something more ambitious.
  - Klonoar 16y ago
    So let's get this straight here. You're saying that you advocate a good exit on a web startup, so you can poor that money into a product/tool/etc that might benefit mankind more? The money any typical exit makes will be around the same amount you'd get from a VC; sure, there's the rare cases like Musk/etc, but those are just that - rare cases. You may as well just go out and get VC funding for the ambitious venture. On top of this, a large portion of startups in the valley will take ~1 million in funding (at least) for some mundane task, then just slowly wither and die, never to be heard from again. If you took 7 of these and combined their engineers and funding, you're telling me you couldn't produce something worthwhile in a venue that mattered? Look, I get it - entertainment is a huge industry, this isn't changing. What I'm arguing against here (and yes, sick and tired of) is the perceived notion that Silicon Valley is a place that is "innovative" when 90% of the startups there are entertainment based. Like it or not, SV is seen as a bastion of innovation in regards to the USA... and we're producing services to go out and eat with random people. If, as a country, we want to out-innovate China/whoever in the long run, we'd do pretty damn well to cut the crap and focus on actually pushing the world forward.
PaulHoule 16y ago
In education or homelessness you're going headlong against problems of the human condition that resist the use of technology. I went to Dreamforce two years ago and saw Beniof and Newsom congratulating themselves for introducing a new program that creates web sites for homeless people. It was insane! It might be different in California (where Beniof illegally ran a business out of a house, driving housing prices up), but I live in a place where it's easy for homeless people to get into the shelter and get welfare IF they're willing to (i) deal with bureaucrats and (ii) stop drinking and using illegal drugs. Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't willing to do that -- it's not a problem of providing physical housing, it's that some people's social connections have deteriorated to the point where they can't even manage to collect welfare, never mind hold a job. From a systemantic perspective, education has two purposes: (a) provide a way that parents can pass class status on to their children that appears legitimate and (b) provide good work for teachers. These are the actual functions of the system. Now, you can innovate all you want in the area of "increasing human potential" but you'll find that people are pretty indifferent to this -- they're more interested in partitioning out access to what already exists. You're not going to get a dime out of the public school budget, and if you threaten (a) or (b) you're going to be viciously attacked by parents, students, teachers and school boards.
- Klonoar 16y ago
  The homeless argument you put forth is one concocted by somebody who's clearly never spent time in any of those shelters. Those shelters are more than overrun with people abusing the system and floating from shelter to shelter in an effort to keep some workless lifestyle. They're not a part of society worth converting on; what IS worth looking into is providing better access to/(and/or) easier solutions for the people who cannot get into these shelters because they're already overrun by addicts and chronic shelter hoppers. If there was more examination put forth on these issues than people just glazing over an article or two we might see more innovation in this space; if you ask me, that's something worthwhile. Education as a topic doesn't necessarily need to be confined to the conventional schooling system, a model which is already proven to be fairly broken (and continually deteriorating). Don't be so quick to think that the only venue for innovation on these topics is at the human potential level; you're absolutely right that people are indifferent to this - what I'm moreso surprised at is that you find that to be a reason to ignore/write-off these fields and their lack of innovation. Just because things have been done one way in the past doesn't mean it can't (or shouldn't) get turned on its head every once in awhile.

by Klonoar 16y ago

ctdonath 16y ago

Remember Doom? Quake? Commander Keen? etc., all well in the "Angry Birds" category the author derides? It's the money from those which let their creator indulge in Armadillo Aerospace, contributing to getting mankind off this risky rock.

MatthewPhillips 16y ago
Bingo. A strong exit on a web startup is a great way to fund something more ambitious.
- Klonoar 16y ago
  So let's get this straight here. You're saying that you advocate a good exit on a web startup, so you can poor that money into a product/tool/etc that might benefit mankind more? The money any typical exit makes will be around the same amount you'd get from a VC; sure, there's the rare cases like Musk/etc, but those are just that - rare cases. You may as well just go out and get VC funding for the ambitious venture. On top of this, a large portion of startups in the valley will take ~1 million in funding (at least) for some mundane task, then just slowly wither and die, never to be heard from again. If you took 7 of these and combined their engineers and funding, you're telling me you couldn't produce something worthwhile in a venue that mattered? Look, I get it - entertainment is a huge industry, this isn't changing. What I'm arguing against here (and yes, sick and tired of) is the perceived notion that Silicon Valley is a place that is "innovative" when 90% of the startups there are entertainment based. Like it or not, SV is seen as a bastion of innovation in regards to the USA... and we're producing services to go out and eat with random people. If, as a country, we want to out-innovate China/whoever in the long run, we'd do pretty damn well to cut the crap and focus on actually pushing the world forward.

PaulHoule 16y ago

In education or homelessness you're going headlong against problems of the human condition that resist the use of technology. I went to Dreamforce two years ago and saw Beniof and Newsom congratulating themselves for introducing a new program that creates web sites for homeless people. It was insane! It might be different in California (where Beniof illegally ran a business out of a house, driving housing prices up), but I live in a place where it's easy for homeless people to get into the shelter and get welfare IF they're willing to (i) deal with bureaucrats and (ii) stop drinking and using illegal drugs. Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't willing to do that -- it's not a problem of providing physical housing, it's that some people's social connections have deteriorated to the point where they can't even manage to collect welfare, never mind hold a job. From a systemantic perspective, education has two purposes: (a) provide a way that parents can pass class status on to their children that appears legitimate and (b) provide good work for teachers. These are the actual functions of the system. Now, you can innovate all you want in the area of "increasing human potential" but you'll find that people are pretty indifferent to this -- they're more interested in partitioning out access to what already exists. You're not going to get a dime out of the public school budget, and if you threaten (a) or (b) you're going to be viciously attacked by parents, students, teachers and school boards.

Klonoar 16y ago
The homeless argument you put forth is one concocted by somebody who's clearly never spent time in any of those shelters. Those shelters are more than overrun with people abusing the system and floating from shelter to shelter in an effort to keep some workless lifestyle. They're not a part of society worth converting on; what IS worth looking into is providing better access to/(and/or) easier solutions for the people who cannot get into these shelters because they're already overrun by addicts and chronic shelter hoppers. If there was more examination put forth on these issues than people just glazing over an article or two we might see more innovation in this space; if you ask me, that's something worthwhile. Education as a topic doesn't necessarily need to be confined to the conventional schooling system, a model which is already proven to be fairly broken (and continually deteriorating). Don't be so quick to think that the only venue for innovation on these topics is at the human potential level; you're absolutely right that people are indifferent to this - what I'm moreso surprised at is that you find that to be a reason to ignore/write-off these fields and their lack of innovation. Just because things have been done one way in the past doesn't mean it can't (or shouldn't) get turned on its head every once in awhile.