4 ms·

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

by 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.
- pg 15y ago
  I'm not confusing the two; he's misusing the phrase "big problems." In ordinary usage, when people talk about solving big problems, they mean hard problems. If you said "back in the 1960s NASA was willing to take on big problems like landing a man on the moon," no one would argue that what you were saying was false on the grounds that it didn't make our everyday lives significantly easier. Someone might claim (probably accurately) that there were more important problems the government should have focused on instead, but no one could honestly claim you were misusing the phrase "big problems."
  - sporkologist 15y ago
    Trains would have helped with Big Problems here in the US (suburban expansion), but Goodyear put $$$ into the bus and automobile industries indirectly somehow (tires wear out faster than steel train wheels). I can't find a direct source for this claim... Wikipedia will help me later....
    - eCa 15y ago
      This is a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi...
      - sporkologist 15y ago
        Thanks.
  - frasertimo 15y ago
    Ok you're right, but why argue the semantics in this case? The author's point is that too many start-ups are creating fun apps that give little moments of joy rather than ones that noticeably and significantly make life easier or better for people. You can criticize the author for trying to be controversial and write something he knows has a good chance of making the front page of HN; as we've all probably noticed posts with this general sentiment are definitely in vogue right now on HN, but I think it's worth moving on from that and noting what he defines as big problems. I think all the problems he lists we can agree are 'big' in the sense that they create a lot of confusion and inefficiency in society. In the case of medical records, 'solving' that problem could literally save countless lives. On a related note, I disagree with the author there are big problems in society that start-ups can't solve. I think there are plenty. For many I'm guessing the idea behind 'Kill Hollywood' springs to mind. For me, it's the ubiquity of advertising in society. Personally, I'd love to see Facebook, Google, and co trying to change the world to reduce the concentration of it in our lives, unfortunately it looks like they're more interested in the opposite.
csomar 15y ago
Doesn't regulation makes them technically hard problems? (Use of technology to defy regulation)
Confusion 15y ago
So he should have said 'the hard problems, that are hard for non-technological reasons'? That's quibbling semantics and does not address the message of the post: that startups cannot solve certain kinds of problems. I think an entirely reasonable response is: so what? Different companies have different purposes and there's no shame in actually tackling one problem instead of attempting to tackle some supposedly bigger/harder problem that you are much less likely to succeed in tackling and that you perhaps don't care for. Moreover, the examples he gives may be annoying, but the cost to society, the companies involved or price people are willing to pay to have them solved may be lower than that of problems startups are addressing, so there is no ecnonomic incentive to work on them.
chipsy 15y ago
I think the more interesting thing is that the bureaucratic problems not solvable by startups still do get solved over time, just not with a grand launch day flourish or ample press coverage. They generally have to be solved by the people in the thick of the bureaucracy who are willing to fight for improvement. And when they win and the problem is taken care of, it won't manifest in an impressive product, it'll be nearly invisible. All of which reinforces the idea that business is not always the model for success - it's just the most common one.

by pg 15y ago

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.

pg 15y ago
I'm not confusing the two; he's misusing the phrase "big problems." In ordinary usage, when people talk about solving big problems, they mean hard problems. If you said "back in the 1960s NASA was willing to take on big problems like landing a man on the moon," no one would argue that what you were saying was false on the grounds that it didn't make our everyday lives significantly easier. Someone might claim (probably accurately) that there were more important problems the government should have focused on instead, but no one could honestly claim you were misusing the phrase "big problems."
- sporkologist 15y ago
  Trains would have helped with Big Problems here in the US (suburban expansion), but Goodyear put $$$ into the bus and automobile industries indirectly somehow (tires wear out faster than steel train wheels). I can't find a direct source for this claim... Wikipedia will help me later....
  - eCa 15y ago
    This is a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi...
    - sporkologist 15y ago
      Thanks.
- frasertimo 15y ago
  Ok you're right, but why argue the semantics in this case? The author's point is that too many start-ups are creating fun apps that give little moments of joy rather than ones that noticeably and significantly make life easier or better for people. You can criticize the author for trying to be controversial and write something he knows has a good chance of making the front page of HN; as we've all probably noticed posts with this general sentiment are definitely in vogue right now on HN, but I think it's worth moving on from that and noting what he defines as big problems. I think all the problems he lists we can agree are 'big' in the sense that they create a lot of confusion and inefficiency in society. In the case of medical records, 'solving' that problem could literally save countless lives. On a related note, I disagree with the author there are big problems in society that start-ups can't solve. I think there are plenty. For many I'm guessing the idea behind 'Kill Hollywood' springs to mind. For me, it's the ubiquity of advertising in society. Personally, I'd love to see Facebook, Google, and co trying to change the world to reduce the concentration of it in our lives, unfortunately it looks like they're more interested in the opposite.

csomar 15y ago

Doesn't regulation makes them technically hard problems? (Use of technology to defy regulation)

Confusion 15y ago

So he should have said 'the hard problems, that are hard for non-technological reasons'? That's quibbling semantics and does not address the message of the post: that startups cannot solve certain kinds of problems. I think an entirely reasonable response is: so what? Different companies have different purposes and there's no shame in actually tackling one problem instead of attempting to tackle some supposedly bigger/harder problem that you are much less likely to succeed in tackling and that you perhaps don't care for. Moreover, the examples he gives may be annoying, but the cost to society, the companies involved or price people are willing to pay to have them solved may be lower than that of problems startups are addressing, so there is no ecnonomic incentive to work on them.

chipsy 15y ago

I think the more interesting thing is that the bureaucratic problems not solvable by startups still do get solved over time, just not with a grand launch day flourish or ample press coverage. They generally have to be solved by the people in the thick of the bureaucracy who are willing to fight for improvement. And when they win and the problem is taken care of, it won't manifest in an impressive product, it'll be nearly invisible. All of which reinforces the idea that business is not always the model for success - it's just the most common one.