5 ms·

'Improving lives' is ambiguous, it centralizes around solving problems that people have. However if you scale these problems from 1st world to 3rd world proble

by qF 15y ago

'Improving lives' is ambiguous, it centralizes around solving problems that people have. However if you scale these problems from 1st world to 3rd world problems it seems to me that improving lives in this context is aimed more at 1st rather than 3rd world problems. Which makes sense from a business standpoint, but the title somewhat implies that is about making the world a 'better' place. I am not criticizing pg because I strongly believe that it is a winning strategy when talking about startups, just take improving lives with a grain of salt. I'd love to actually improve lives, but unless you can take the Bill Gates route (earn billions, do charity work), it's not easy to do so from behind a computer, writing code. Are there any startups taking the route of actually improving quality of life?

mthreat 15y ago
PG discusses this at about the 5m mark in this video, using the example of curing Malaria: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7K0vRUKXKc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7K0vRUKXKc
gibybo 15y ago
While making the world a better place may not be sufficient to build a successful business, I don't think it's fair to say only organizations focusing on the third world are improving quality of life. Companies usually don't make money unless they are helping someone, and that help often leads to an improved quality of life, first world or not.
- qF 15y ago
  I specifically chose to talk about a scale, because I do agree that it is not black and white. There is however a difference between: earning money as a goal and improving lives as a means (improved quality of life being a byproduct) and wanting to improve lives (and as such quality of life) and earning money only being a requirement to sustain those activities. But perhaps startups are not way to go for the latter, which is why I am curious if there are any startups taking this route (or perhaps have tried and failed).
  - patio11 15y ago
    This is the perennial theological question about charity: do you measure goodness based on charitable intent or on charitable results? Say getting money to poor folks in India is a charitable result with nearly-universal support here. It is doubtful Microsoft scores very high on the intent scale there, but they have probably done more for poor Indians this year than all active charities and all foreign government aid in history. I love Mother Teresa, but aside from the poor's spiritual needs, if moving them into the middle class is a goal worth pursuing than economic growth has been really freaking effective and charity not so much. This is one of the reasons Twilio excites me so much, incidentally. (Disclaimer: commercial relationship.) Cheap mobile phones have been a huge, huge, huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge win for the global poor. Twilio (and companies like it) upgrade every phone in the world to being a smart phone. I think that's going to create wealth on the scale of the Green Revolution or the Internet eventually.
    - qF 15y ago
      hmm, interesting, and I don't deny that 'commercial' companies can have good (unintentional) effects. But I am sure there is a space between charity and 'actual' companies, along the lines of what Fábio Barbosa[1] is doing. Which makes me wonder if it is viable for startups to take such an approach? [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrONJfa9lZU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrONJfa9lZU
    - ced 15y ago
      Honest question: how are phones for the poor such a huge win?
      - spaghetti 15y ago
        It depends on the existing available methods of communication. If "the poor" have internet access, email, Twitter etc then adding phones doesn't help much. On the other hand if the poor don't have any internet access then just having a cell phone that lets you communicate with business partners across town could make a substantial difference. Imagine a simple business where one guy sells vegetables in a marketplace in an urban area and his business partner buys vegetables from farmers 10 miles away in a rural area. If the two can communicates via phone then they can coordinate buying, selling and transporting the vegetables (or any physical good) easily. They could even optimize purchases on a given day based on the "real-time" demand the one guy sees in the marketplace. In general the local economy could be optimized in ways that are a net win for everyone. Lack of phones and communication could hinder this.
neebz 15y ago
I don't think improving lives only mean going out and saving lives. Hipmunk is improving life by making us get rid of ad-ridden travel sites. I think when he says 'improve life', he mean create something which is better than what we already have. It can be any market or niche and may target a small user audience too but as long as it's better than what we currently have, it's improving the overall standard of life.
webwright 15y ago
Vittana and Kiva are both arguably startups (the former certainly-- they are young/small and enjoying epic growth).

by qF 15y ago

mthreat 15y ago

PG discusses this at about the 5m mark in this video, using the example of curing Malaria: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7K0vRUKXKc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7K0vRUKXKc

gibybo 15y ago

While making the world a better place may not be sufficient to build a successful business, I don't think it's fair to say only organizations focusing on the third world are improving quality of life. Companies usually don't make money unless they are helping someone, and that help often leads to an improved quality of life, first world or not.

qF 15y ago
I specifically chose to talk about a scale, because I do agree that it is not black and white. There is however a difference between: earning money as a goal and improving lives as a means (improved quality of life being a byproduct) and wanting to improve lives (and as such quality of life) and earning money only being a requirement to sustain those activities. But perhaps startups are not way to go for the latter, which is why I am curious if there are any startups taking this route (or perhaps have tried and failed).
- patio11 15y ago
  This is the perennial theological question about charity: do you measure goodness based on charitable intent or on charitable results? Say getting money to poor folks in India is a charitable result with nearly-universal support here. It is doubtful Microsoft scores very high on the intent scale there, but they have probably done more for poor Indians this year than all active charities and all foreign government aid in history. I love Mother Teresa, but aside from the poor's spiritual needs, if moving them into the middle class is a goal worth pursuing than economic growth has been really freaking effective and charity not so much. This is one of the reasons Twilio excites me so much, incidentally. (Disclaimer: commercial relationship.) Cheap mobile phones have been a huge, huge, huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge win for the global poor. Twilio (and companies like it) upgrade every phone in the world to being a smart phone. I think that's going to create wealth on the scale of the Green Revolution or the Internet eventually.
  - qF 15y ago
    hmm, interesting, and I don't deny that 'commercial' companies can have good (unintentional) effects. But I am sure there is a space between charity and 'actual' companies, along the lines of what Fábio Barbosa[1] is doing. Which makes me wonder if it is viable for startups to take such an approach? [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrONJfa9lZU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrONJfa9lZU
  - ced 15y ago
    Honest question: how are phones for the poor such a huge win?
    - spaghetti 15y ago
      It depends on the existing available methods of communication. If "the poor" have internet access, email, Twitter etc then adding phones doesn't help much. On the other hand if the poor don't have any internet access then just having a cell phone that lets you communicate with business partners across town could make a substantial difference. Imagine a simple business where one guy sells vegetables in a marketplace in an urban area and his business partner buys vegetables from farmers 10 miles away in a rural area. If the two can communicates via phone then they can coordinate buying, selling and transporting the vegetables (or any physical good) easily. They could even optimize purchases on a given day based on the "real-time" demand the one guy sees in the marketplace. In general the local economy could be optimized in ways that are a net win for everyone. Lack of phones and communication could hinder this.

neebz 15y ago

I don't think improving lives only mean going out and saving lives. Hipmunk is improving life by making us get rid of ad-ridden travel sites. I think when he says 'improve life', he mean create something which is better than what we already have. It can be any market or niche and may target a small user audience too but as long as it's better than what we currently have, it's improving the overall standard of life.

webwright 15y ago

Vittana and Kiva are both arguably startups (the former certainly-- they are young/small and enjoying epic growth).