I don't think you need to worry. In the bigger picture, there are many more startups than there used to be (and therefore more "deep" ones, in absolute terms).

I don't think you need to worry. In the bigger picture, there are many more startups than there used to be (and therefore more "deep" ones, in absolute terms). It's partly due to the cheapness of the technology, though there's also been a social/economic/political shift away from the paternal corporation; and YC itself also definitely helps. Even if most of the startups are shallow (I'm not convinced that's true, but just for the purposes of argument), I think that there are now more "deep" startups than there used to be. As for the startups that don't eventually hit on a real problem to solve, or somehow don't manage to execute, or get blinded-sided by a competitor or otherwise luck out - is it really worse for society that they do this, instead of working at a law firm, or merchant bank, or financial analyst etc? Might they not learn something valuable, that will later benefit society? Can you imagine better training, for initiative, getting things done, working with others, exercising self-discipline than a startup? But I think the bottom line is that if they are getting $25MM payouts, then that shows that our market society is valuing what they're doing. Now, possibly the acquirers are wrong; but that is a fault of our society, not of the startups. And if the acquirers are wrong, it will likely be corrected before long. And, if it isn't, we economically we will be overtaken by a society with healthier, more grounded values - perhaps China. The problem is with "what buyers want", not with the startups who make it. BTW: I totally prefer meaningful startups - both in a technical sense, and in a making things better sense. (e.g. HP put making money as a means to fund technical contribution; and it worked out well for them.) I think that ultimately they will have the greater success, so I think it will all work out in the end.