4 ms·
+1 on the opposite problem being much, much more common. Especially in any domain or application where there is some deep science or subject matter expertise in
by counters 4y ago
+1 on the opposite problem being much, much more common. Especially in any domain or application where there is some deep science or subject matter expertise involved.
I've seen countless VC-funded startups which promise to combine "shiny technology X" with "problem Y" to create "amazing product Z". A lot of times, I know for a fact that "technology X" has never even been shown to make a difference on "problem Y". As in, I can point to literature of some sort that shows how it has a marginal effect at best, or is prohibitively expensive relative to existing state of the art. That doesn't necessarily mean "product Z" is a bad idea... but _so_ many ego-driven startup founders get fixated on selling the technology story instead of the product story.
Maybe the current macro-economic climate will wipe a lot of these guys out, since they'll be forced to figure out how to execute on the product side instead of selling the same ol' obvious BS tech/science story.
- MrPatan 4y agoBut maybe at some point tech X has improved enough that it can make a difference, and you would never know if those ego-driven founders didn't try.
- counters 4y agoFew startups - unless they're extremely well funded and have leadership with backgrounds in research and the technical domains in which they're specializing - invest a fraction of the R&D tat would be necessary to improve the tech. In a best case scenario, someone external publishes an innovation which the company can pivot towards to save their butts. For everyone else? Might as well light piles of millions of dollars on fire. Complete failure of the innovation system to rely on ego-driven founders with no technical background making risky bets with low probability of success.