10 ms·

The problem with startups is that they can’t solve the big problems.

• thinkcomp 15y ago
  Sure they can. You just have to devote a lot of effort to do the additional analysis necessary. Most entrepreneurs simply aren't willing. There are such things as intractable problems, but payments, health care recordkeeping and government are not among them. I do like the fundamental point of the post, though. There should be more attention paid by startups to serious problems.
  • DavidAdams 15y ago
    I agree with you that they can, but I think the point of this essay is that startups can't solve these problems on their own, using only technology and chutzpah. In order to solve "health care recordkeeping" you have to get governments and large companies on board with the process. You can lead a horse to water, and all that. There are going to need to be a lot of people at the table, and for the most part a startup isn't going to have the political juice to make it happen.
    • ams6110 15y ago
      You will never succeed if your plan is to get government "on board" with the process. What needs to happen is to get government OUT of the process.
      • coopdog 15y ago
        Government may be incompetent, inefficient and slow, but at least they won't cut corners on security. For sharing tweets or something a startup can get the infrastructure done pretty quick, for something more serious (eg tax info) you really want a proper security team and proper insurance and legal advice. VC's and advisors need to provide a platform to give startups those tools. For security using Google AppEngine or the Amazon cloud, combined with automated penetration testing tools, combined with some kind of cheap application security testing (does it exist yet?) might get enough of the way there, but would you really trust something so flimsy, run by two kids out of college who are working it out as they go, with your serious data?
        • ams6110 15y ago
          You don't appear to know how security really operates in federal government software. They hire Booz-Allen-Hamilton for millions of dollars to come in with 200 consultants and produce a massive report declaring their software meets all "certification and accreditation" requirements. This document then goes on a shelf somewhere and government workers continue to email all kinds of PI data around in Word and Excel attachments because the software is so obtuse it's the only way they can actually get anything done.
  • waqf 15y ago
    I don't think it's just analysis, unless your definition of "analysis" is impossibly broad. The other big problem is, once you've built your wondrous technical solution to medical records, or income tax, how do you break into the market? Normally you would partner with some hip new entrant to (or at least, small player in) the medical or governance market, who isn't too invested in the status quo, and persuade them to use your solution via a combination of favourable pricing and the promise of a competitive advantage. But these fields are so far from being competitive that you just can't find such a partner.
  • _delirium 15y ago
    Some entrepreneurs are willing, but most funders are even less willing. A pitch that you've found some important, but uncommercialized, recent scientific or technical advances that you see a market niche for can be well-received. A pitch that you're going to make some significant scientific or technical advances as part of your startup's R&D effort is usually seen as way too much risk: a VC does not want "major scientific advance" to be in your critical path. The result is that the significant R&D has to happen elsewhere (often academia) to produce the stock of not-yet-commercialized results that startups can build on, rather than being produced by the startups themselves, since they can't have significant/risky R&D in their critical paths. Even Google, for example, only got funded after significant R&D work had been done by the founders in grad school. Seems less true in biotech, where VCs are willing to fund substantial R&D budgets, perhaps because the [breakthrough -> patent -> license] ecosystem is better established there; the tech startups using the breakthrough/patent/license pipeline seem to verge on patent trolls more than real R&D outfits.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• greenyoda 15y ago
  Not every startup is a couple of guys working on an iPhone app. Startups have definitely solved big problems. For example: - Amazon.com, when it was a startup, figured out how to allow you to buy just about any book in print and have it delivered to your home. They had to build or lease warehouses, contract with delivery companies, and do all sorts of things that were not just hacking or technology. - Apple, when it was a startup (two guys working in a garage) figured out how to design an easy to use personal computer and get it manufactured at an affordable price. Actually, I'm uncertain about whether I really want the problem of centralized healthcare records to be solved. If it is, it means that my healthcare records could easily fall into the wrong hands (look at how many data breaches there have been at banks, for example).
  • sliverstorm 15y ago
    "Startups" is being used in a restricted context here.
  • Dove 15y ago
    Actually, I'm uncertain about whether I really want the problem of centralized healthcare records to be solved. If it is, it means that my healthcare records could easily fall into the wrong hands Making sure this doesn't happen is part of the problem definition. I'd expect something like client-side encryption to be an essential piece of the puzzle.
• stfu 15y ago
  I for one am quite happy that my health, working history and government database profiles are not (yet) interlinked. Sure, it would make things a lot easier... BUT
  • jodrellblank 15y ago
    BUT what?
    • ams6110 15y ago
      You want the government snooping around in your medical history?
      • dangrossman 15y ago
        Do governments with socialized healthcare not have access to their citizenry's medical histories? I wouldn't have a problem with it.
        • coopdog 15y ago
          Only people with a need it get access, eg doctors It's not a huge deal over here but imagine trying to run for office with an abortion from your 20's in your medical history if the opposition knew about it Or politicians 'requesting' donations from directors of big companies or else their socially embarrassing medical issues like HIV (one in 20 people in the USA!) or plastic surgery history get's 'anonymously leaked' Medical records can actually be a pretty huge source of power and that's certainly one thing the government should have as little as absolutely required of. All I have is a couple of broken bones in mine but I'm sure there are good people who could be swayed by bad people with the wrong information in the wrong hands
          • aboodman 15y ago
            Hm. CDC says the number is 1 in 300: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm
• ABrandt 15y ago
  There's actually a fairly decent chance that you do have a secure way to access your medical records online. About 38% of patients in the US have a record in an Epic (disclaimer: my employer) EMR system. If you're part of that population, chances are good that you have access to Epic's MyChart web portal [1]. Each organization brands this portal as their own so I recommend asking your doctor's front desk staff about it. And more directly to the OP's point, Epic certainly was once a startup (3 employees 30 years ago, 5000 today) that has tackled some very big problems. I don't refute that there are many more startups working on products that won't quite save the world, but is that such a bad thing? P.T Barnum was organizing circus acts while his contemporaries Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan were shifting the very foundation of our society (literally and figuratively). Doesn't mean Barnum doesn't have a legacy of his own though. [1] - Here's an example: https://mychart.clevelandclinic.org/ https://mychart.clevelandclinic.org/
  • absconditus 15y ago
    The industry is much different today than it was when Epic was small. Even established companies now struggle to keep their clients from migrating to Epic. Epic's ability to connect different hospitals and physician practices trumps most other functionality.
• bhewes 15y ago
  My only question is which of the three problems is actual a technical problem? All three seem to be if anything political problems.
  • krausejj 15y ago
    that's the point... we are very efficient at getting restaurant reservations or booking flights or doing video chats with random people around the globe, but we can't apply technology to the most basic, fundamental problems that we are actually facing
    • bhewes 15y ago
      You are right. My argument would be that the fundamental problems may not be solvable. Though I think in smaller countries the problems can be mitigated effectively. Example I believe in Singapore you can pay your taxes online.
      • deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      • dangrossman 15y ago
        Probably 95% of individual returns in the US can be handled by one of the high-end copies of TurboTax from your local office supply store. If Intuit can build it, so could the IRS and offer it as a web app. They could also put the data from W2s, 1099s, etc they receive online for you to view and automatically fill out most of your return with it. It's a technology issue, just one the IRS has to tackle, not a startup.
        • bhewes 15y ago
          It is still a political problem as the IRS has not already done it even though the tech is available. But you are right it is not something a startup can do. Though a startup could develop web apps for states. God help them if they do.
      • 15y ago
• sakopov 15y ago
  ADP (www.adp.com) is a company which provides pretty much all of the mentioned services. My employer uses them as the corporate portal for W2s, vacation/sick time and etc. The user experience is terrible and the site won't render right in anything but IE. But these guys thrive because there is no competition. This is obviously not your typical trendy and entertaining niche to be in. It doesn't appeal to most people, like a picture of video sharing service. It's hard to break into the market. Most startups these days are after quick money. They'll roll out, get a decent user-base and sell out the moment they can. Creating a startup in this niche would require a lot ass-busting work and PR to get paying clients.
  • pyre 15y ago
    If you poke at their JavaScript, you'll notice that they intercept every keypress and handle it explicitly (i.e. having a list of alphanumerics that are 'ok' to pass through on text boxes) rather than letting the browser handle the keys that don't need to be special cased. It really seems like someone decided to convert some 'green screen' apps to the web (or else someone with only 'green screen' experience decided to do web programming).
• Tichy 15y ago
  "Dr Socman has tagged you with measles vaccination. Please confirm." - Problem solved?
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
• lrobb 15y ago
  oddly, I would hardly classify the administrivia you listed as "big problems"... Those are first world middle class problems. Why the downvotes? TRULY Big problems: Every year 15 million children die of hunger. ... 1 in 5 children in Africa die of malaria ... 1 million people die of malaria I would hardly classify "having to fill out the same form every time I go to the Doctor's office" as a "BIG" problem.
  • Aloisius 15y ago
    I'm not sure I would classify yours as big problems either. We have plenty of food and anti-malarial medicine. We lack the will to pay for it and the ability to distribute it effectively in the midst of corrupt/brutal governments without empowering said governments. I'd argue that solving the latter is a Big Problem although not one I imagine a for-profit company solving.
  • tdoggette 15y ago
    I just donated 200 bucks to the Against Malaria Foundation. Your comment is the direct reason for this.
  • staunch 15y ago
    Bill Gates' startup will do more about that problem than almost any other organization.
  • chc 15y ago
    This is essentially a quibble over semantics. It's like if I did something for somebody and he told me, "Wow, you're the best!" and I replied "Nah, Shaq is a much better basketball player than I am." Most likely he isn't praising my skill at dunking. When you say "big," you appear to mean "severe and life-threatening". When he says it, he appears to mean something like "broad in scope, requiring an extremely complex solution." Malaria prevention doesn't really fit the latter definition, though it does fit the unrelated definition you're using.
  • krausejj 15y ago
    i agree with you. the dmv is a big problem. world hunger is a really big problem.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• Locke1689 15y ago
  Is it possible that we see these as big problems partially because they can't be solved by startups? If these could be solved by startups then they would no longer be big problems and some other problems would pop up which couldn't be solved by startups and would be referred to as the "big problems."
  • krausejj 15y ago
    i definitely think it's possible.... but i still think it's a pretty big problem when basic medical information is harder to access than last week's restaurant reservation
    • Locke1689 15y ago
      I definitely think that's true, but I think that your own construction of the problem supports my point. Last week's restaurant reservation is easy to access because it's a problem that can be addressed by startups. In other words, the reason why medical information is a "big problem" is that it hasn't been vulnerable to the same advancement that we perceive in other industries, mostly due to its barriers to entry. Without those barriers to entry it wouldn't be a "big problem," it would just be another thing that gets better with advancing technology.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• pg 15y ago
  The examples he gives are not truly big problems; they're medium-sized ones made artificially hard by regulations. Dropbox is probably solving a bigger problem technically than any of the examples he gives.
  • FredBrach 15y ago
    I agree, politics problems are not problems companies can solve at all.
  • zachinglis 15y ago
    As far as I am concerned it's a post dedicated to piss the audience on which he used to promote it. Thus creating debate. Nothing more, nothing less. But I think you strike on the point that big problems are relative. To me a huge problem is the lack of tech scene in my new area I've moved to, yet only a few hours away is a bustling one. But to most people that's a tiny problem. If you're talking about ones that affect everyone, there are at least a few startups that I can name off by head (though mostly stealth) that are tackling big problems. It's quite an over-arching statement to suggest he knows every startup's mission.
    • krausejj 15y ago
      I absolutely did not write the article to piss anyone off - I am a developer who has spent my fair share of time trying to build checkin apps, etc. If anything, the post simply reflects my frustration that I can't use my skills to address glaring inefficiencies in my daily life.
  • Sandman 15y ago
    You're mistaking big with technologically complex. The author of the article clearly states that there is no complex technology involved in solving these problems. Yet, they are big. They're big because solving these problems would make our everyday lives significantly easier (much more so than a photo-sharing app, for example). But unfortunately, as you correctly point out, regulations prevent people who would be willing to provide a solution from doing so.
• jakegottlieb 15y ago
  I don't think it's true. With 5 programmers we were able to accomplish what 50 did at method integration. We created a better interfaced, more thought out integration. We just soft launched and here is a link to our YC post http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3521108 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3521108. Most startups don't have e know how but we are all pretty seasoned in creating businesses. I wouldn't really call it a startup but in a literal sense of course it is.
• skue 15y ago
  Just because you don't see startups tackling these things doesn't mean it's not happening. Maybe you just need to look harder... For your point #1, it's called a PHR (personal health record) and it's been done by many players including many startups, plus Google (who gave up because no one used it) and Microsoft (which still has one). The problem is NOT the government. (In fact, find podcasts or video of the CTO of HHS Todd Park or the CTO of the USA Aneesh Chopra, and then tell me that it's the government that's holding back health entrepreneurs. Seriously, go google these guys.) The problem in healthcare is the lack of engagement from many consumer/patients plus a private industry reluctant to standardize. The Feds are trying to lead the way. If you're a vet, you can get access your medical records from the VA via their Blue Button initiative, and the government is encouraging other systems to follow (and some have). Yesterday 1200 people attended a free Health Care Innovation Summit in DC with the heads of HHS and CMS (including Todd and Aneesh) on stage actively supporting healthcare innovation and entrepreneurship. I know because I was there as the CEO of a small health IT company that's solving some of those "big problems." Check out hcidc.org in the coming days for a video archive of the event. New companies ARE changing healthcare. (That's actually the point of Obamacare!) Check out the many health startups from Blueprint Health, RockHealth, and HealthBox. In other words go look before you assume that none of us are solving big problems. Not all of us make gamified, location-based, social networking buzzword bingo solutions for mobile. Edit: fixed Aneesha's title
  • AznHisoka 15y ago
    Lack of engagement is a huge problem, and a big obstacle for many entrepreneurs. It's easy to engage users to make them gamble in a casino, or buy junk food that tastes great. It's hard to make them use something that would benefit them, but bores the heck outta them.
  • chintan 15y ago
    > The problem in healthcare is the lack of engagement from many consumer/patients plus a private industry reluctant to standardize. I don't think patient engagement is an issue -- there are gazillion health related niche disease communities/blogs on the Internet. The challenge for consumer oriented startups is to scale beyond their specific niche to become successful in terms of revenue or as a widely used App/Service. For all health IT startups targeting to the enterprise -- Good Luck with the PBU (Payer, Buyer, User) problem.
• michaelochurch 15y ago
  This may not be relevant, but what irks me in 2012 is how pathetic we are at transportation. You know, moving humans around. We fail it. If you want to go from New York to Los Angeles, you have a sub-5% chance of paying a fair price. Most often, you'll find yourself paying a ridiculously high price because you booked your ticket to close to the date, too far away from it, on the wrong day of the week, or in the wrong season. Then you get shitty service the whole way, including 40-minute security lines and $25 baggage-check fees. If you spring for business class (domestic first) you get service that was almost as good as what coach offered 30 years ago, when flying wasn't horrible. Trains aren't even an option for mid-distance travel, due to the infrequent schedules, equally absurd fares, and slow speeds (comparable to cars, except on Acela, a "high speed" service that goes 120 mph). We have good highways in the U.S., and people drive a lot in this country because it's the only mode of transportation that actually works (for a family of four, it's cheaper than air and rail, which is just fucking absurd) but it's just not safe to drive them faster than 80-90 mph average speed, and legally you can't even go that fast. New York is the only city with "decent" (by American standards) public transit, and that's still not enough to slash housing prices to where they'd be with an extensive transit network. (Note to all: if you pay urban rents, you'd benefit from a better public transit system even if you never used it, because it would de-crowd the city.) We're amazingly good at shipping electrons, but we've given up entirely on moving humans.
  • AznHisoka 15y ago
    While NY has pretty decent public transit, the whole experience is still horrible and soul-sucking. Having a hard day at work is already tough, but add in a hour of pushing inside crowded subway trains, next to inconsiderate people who don't bother to make room and no wonder most people in NYC are stressed out. So rather than address cost, I want to see an Uber bus that transports people from residential areas downtown to replace crowded subways. The grown up version of a school bus. Market it as a fun experience and alternative to crowded trains. I wouldn't mind paying a premium for it.
    • enf 15y ago
      It would be great to see if there was a market for a premium bus service, but your competition is probably municipal buses, not subways, since your bus can't compete with subways on passenger capacity (limited to 62 feet) or speed (subject to traffic signals and congestion from other vehicles).
• ilaksh 15y ago
  These issues are structural. Its as if our institutions are just now upgrading to Dungeons and & Dragons Pathfinder edition while leading-edge companies are running the Skyrim engine. We need common semantic data formats and automated systems based on them for processing data and enforcing regulations where necessary. We also need these data formats and systems to be designed to ensure a certain level of distribution and guard against over-centralization, both on a corporate (antitrust) and personal (income inequality) level. Another key requirement is for the data formats and systems development to be continuous and agile. Part of the problem is the belief in, and acceptance of, not only deadly force but a monopoly on force, in the form of centralized government. Common data formats are a critical missing component which should be agreed upon, but governments currently bear too much resemblance to large criminal organizations to expect them to really facilitate innovation. I believe we need to iterate on the core of our social institutions, starting by reexamining basic premises. For example, if nearly every group is simply competing against all of the other groups for profit, how can an individual group come to the conclusion that completely revising their data systems to handle a new common format is a priority? I'm not saying that we can't have competition, but I am saying that we need to look very closely at the fundamentals of the way the system works and try out some different frameworks.
• tkiley 15y ago
  Every company that has ever tackled a big problem was once a startup. Startups can't solve big problems right away, but some (mine included) intend to get there some day. Right now, my company is a tiny star in the oligopolistic slow-moving galaxy of the US healthcare system. We grew 10x in 2008-2009, and grew 10x again in 2010-2011. We're still gathering steam, but we (and healthcare companies like us) are crafting the building blocks that will one day grow into the solution to this big hairy problem.
• winter_blue 15y ago
  A non-profit for the good of the people company (like Salvation Army, etc.) could tackle these problems. For instance for the government taxes one; a group could build a website that handled it and offer it for free to the government.
• jholman 15y ago
  I think the point is interesting, and I definitely question the social value of the social-media startup, and I hate to be the guy in the room arguing for what amounts to a modern-day aristocracy, BUT... In a sort of roundabout delayed fashion, startups ARE leading to tackling big problems. http://spacex.com http://spacex.com http://teslamotors.com http://teslamotors.com http://gatesfoundation.org http://gatesfoundation.org http://startupeducation.org http://startupeducation.org http://ubuntu.com http://ubuntu.com (maybe stretching it a bit) http://omidyar.com http://omidyar.com
  • mvzink 15y ago
    This list is really a non-sequitur. First, I honestly can't count Ubuntu. So besides that: Gates Foundation, Startup Education, and Omidyar are essentially charity. Yeah, they are technically start ups, but... The other two's problem domains are really exceptions in the realm of "big problems": we've been doing space travel, we've been doing electric cars—these startups just do it better, but they aren't solving any new big problems. (They are solving many interesting technical problems along the way, of course.) It's also interesting that every one on that list (still discounting Ubuntu) was started with a pile of money by a previously successful entrepreneur. (And SpaceX and Tesla by the same entrepreneur, by the way.)
    • jholman 15y ago
      Whoa, whoa. Those aren't startups. Those are organisations tackling big problems that are all funded by the wealth generated by startups. Did you ignore the words "aristocracy", "delayed", and "roundabout" in my comment?
      • mvzink 15y ago
        Aha, that went over my head. Apologies! In that case: excellent point.
  • dredmorbius 15y ago
    Nice, I was going to suggest a similar list (Tesla and SpaceX definitely). There's Rocky Mountain Institute, Amory Lovins' energy conservation research lab. A little thin on product, but he's done a lot of the thinking that's materializing around low-energy transport and alternative energy now. There are numerous other players in the energy field as well. I'd argue that California's High Speed Rail Commission is, if not a private startup, at least a partnership tackling a Hard Problem (perhaps intractable, though I'd like to hope not). I'd be interested in seeing this list developed further.
• jsilence 15y ago
  Please excuse me when I point out that the mentioned big problems are big first world problems. The true big problems are how we as humanity cope with growing world population in the face of dwindling ressources. Desertification and water scarcity, climate change. Having shelter and food, water. Reducing the toxification and killing of mother earth. Global justice. Our standard of living feeds off of the uncounted lives of other humans (and animals). Simple examples: the poor people mining Coltrane for our newest gadgets under inhumane conditions and the children in Ghana burning our electronic waste in the open, inhaling the toxic fumes, to get a little metal to pay for food. These are challenges on massive scale. So. A place to store my birth certificate? Srsly? Not really a problem.
• alexchamberlain 15y ago
  The problem with these problems are that they aren't scalable. The problems you listed are quite US centric, but startups aren't happy unless the market is international.
• yurylifshits 15y ago
  Some other big problems: Prisons Retirement for not-so-rich people High schools Government procurement Shipping (in developing countries) Customs (in developing countries) Utilities prices in Northern countries Digital democracy (removing corporate influence on elections)
  • known 15y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems
• luckyisgood 15y ago
  How about solving small, but important problems? There are countless examples of people using tech to improve people's lives in a way that matters. Just look at the winners of this year's Microsoft Imagine Cup: http://www.imaginecup.com/blogs/imagine_cup_finals/default.aspx http://www.imaginecup.com/blogs/imagine_cup_finals/default.a... - Apptenders, team from Croatia, built a physical therapy app for Kinect that helps children with cerebral palsy, quote: "KiDnect is a Kinect-based solution for on-premise and remote physical therapy for children, especially those born with Cerebral Palsy. This software has the ability to monitor a child’s exercises to ensure they are being completed correctly, and then provides statistical analysis to the therapist." I would argue that the problems of the world are solved by solving small important problems, one at a time. And there's a world of opportunity for every startup to do just that!
• substack 15y ago
  At the civic level, check out some of the projects that the Code for America folks are up to: http://codeforamerica.org/projects/ http://codeforamerica.org/projects/
• substack 15y ago
  At the civic level, check out some of the projects that the Code for America folks are up to: http://codeforamerica.org/projects/ http://codeforamerica.org/projects/
• pagejim 15y ago
  We could look at the OP's point and take it a bit further to ask, What are the biggest problems humanity faces today and how can software contribute and co-operate with other disciplines to tackle these problems? Most of the problems, that humanity today faces are in some way or other linked to Geo-Politics, unequal distribution of resources/wealth/well-being among the world population, non-optimized consumption of natural resources and we are running out of them and so on and so forth. So can software or software startups think about finding the problems they are trying to solve by taking into mind the global perspective? Or are they even willing to? I am not a startup guy and I don’t even have many friends in the community, so I am not in a position to answer this question, but I am sure others here can. But problems alone can’t take up whole of the domain of human interest. So, the second part of the question, would be, what are the most interesting problems/technologies software could solve teaming up with other disciplines? I guess, many people are already working on such things, but the tech is still not mature enough or marketable enough, to be presented to the world, e.g. Google Xlab.
• Havoc 15y ago
  So in short: Start-ups are dynamic while big companies are powerful. Red tape problems need both. I tend to agree though: The minor inconveniences listed by the author aren't "big problems". We've got an endless list of _proper_ big problem. AIDS, global warming etc. You don't fight those problems with the same tools as one would for red tape - you need actual innovation...which I gather start-ups occasionally achieve.
• krmmalik 15y ago
  Interestingly enough, i was thinking along the very same lines just yesterday, and most of this week. I have spent the last week going back and forth to the bank to open up a new bank account and failed multiple times. Simply because they dont accept certain types of proof of address, nor printed copies. Unfortunately i moved into the house with my then fiance so all bills are in her name except the ISP bill but it is emailed to me electronically. I had no choice but to print out, but the bank did not accept it citing "its a copy". These kind of problems in 2012 should be easy to solve, and yet here we are. Why is there not a decent banking service out there that is well aligned with how we do business in 2012? Why im a stuck with the big powerhouse that are like big ships when it comes to steering direction. i.e pathetically slow. I also thought similar things with Car Repair and servicing. I think that market is utterly ripe for disruption and hasnt had any real innovation (from an organisational point of view), in a seriously long time. These are just two problems that come to mind since they're very fresh on my mind recently, but im sure there are many others just like they were pointed out in the blog post.
• nhangen 15y ago
  I agree with the sentiment that too many startups are working to solve problems that don't really exist, but what irks me even more is that so many of today's startups are working not to make the world a better place, but to find better ways to serve advertising. It's quite depressing to see so much energy wasted on this problem, which isn't a problem for consumers, but for advertisers. I'm sorry, but finding a better ways to use mobile photo social geo to target people for ads is not changing the world.
  • itmag 15y ago
    Yeah, but those startup people could be working in Big Finance or whatever. Having them working on useless social apps is harm reduction :)
• jphackworth 15y ago
  You don't think Apple and Google are solving big problems? They were startups too, once. I think the flaw in your logic is that once a startup successfully solves a big problem, they quickly stop being a startup, and become a big company. It's a mistake to conclude "startups can't solve big problems".