4 ms·

What you're pointing out doesn't really discount her point. There can be countless Groupon clones and photo sharing apps that blow hard and still be gems like T

• ultrasaurus 15y ago
  So her argument is that we should try to only make successful products?
  • justincormack 15y ago
    No, potentially world changing products. Most of which will fail. As most vc funded companies fail the failure is ok. She is complaining that the potential upside is too low due to lack of ambition to really change things radically.
  • EricBerglund 15y ago
    Really I think her point is best summed up by "It’s never about the technology or impact it’s having, it’s about the game of entrepreneurship; getting users, funding and exiting as quickly as you can." Her complaint seems to be that startups aren't trying to be successful businesses, they're trying to be successful startups, which aren't necessarily the same thing.
  • pedalpete 15y ago
    I think it goes without saying that you should try to only make successful products, but I think what is being argued here is that many of the companies she is seeing are just 'follow the leader' type companies. Groupon was successful, so we'll do the same thing. There are a few social metrics companies doing well, so we'll jump into that market and see what happens. What the author, I think, is saying, and what I believe personally is that if you do the same things that others are doing, you're guaranteed to have lots of competitors to duke it out with. Strike out and do something unexpected, find a market or make your own. It seems that many people think that creating a copy of another company with 'better design' or 'feature x' is innovating, but it isn't. Innovate in technology, business model, anything, but be innovative. The reason she mentions the companies she mentions is that it is easier to remember the innovators than the copy cats (and often the innovators have greater success).