3 ms·

I think pg has misjudged what stage of the start-up revolution we're in. He notes that the industrial revolution spread quickly because there were geographical

by dant 17y ago

I think pg has misjudged what stage of the start-up revolution we're in. He notes that the industrial revolution spread quickly because there were geographical areas with middle class populations and cultures that let people keep the large sums of money they made. He also notes that the culture necessary for large numbers of start-ups is not present in many areas. IMO, we're no way near the railroad stage of the start-up revolution. I think we're in the early renaissance. The valley is like Venice in the 1400s. It's a very localised concentration of merchant traders and a culture of what we now call "modern values", meanwhile the rest Europe is living in the "dark ages". It wasn't until the plague spread across Europe and gave the surviving working classes more influence that the culture started to change. Even then, it's another 300 years before society really starts to change. Looking at Europe in the 1400 hundreds you might well have thought that Venetian style modernism would be a very localised revolution and that these new fangled "banks" would only ever be established in small areas. Start-ups are not the "railroads" of the industrial revolution. They are the "banks" of the industrial revolution.

BerislavLopac 17y ago
The main problem with PG's article is that he is, as always, overly focused on startups. For something to be a revolution, it has to last for a while (otherwise it's just a rebellion, and a failed one on top of it), which is something directly opposite to the nature of startups. By definition, startups don't last -- they either disappear (either by failing or M&A), or they stop being startups and turn into "regular" companies. But, that being said, I still think that Paul is on to something -- the future model of a succesful company is not a large multinational conglomerate like IBM, Microsoft or Shell, which is too large for its own good and where, like with dinosaurs, it takes ages for a signal to travel from limb to brain and back. Instead, I believe that the future of companies lie in small, flexible and agile companies which have simple operations and global reach. This doesn't mean that a successful company should somehow prevent its own growth -- but it should grow in small units, sprouting new, smaller companies which operate on their own. My favo(u)rite example, which proves that this model works, is the Virgin Group, which includes lots of small to medium sized companies which operate in a number of different industries. For a traditional, centralized company such diversity would be a suicide, but in this case the companies are connected by the common brand and its messages.

by dant 17y ago

BerislavLopac 17y ago

The main problem with PG's article is that he is, as always, overly focused on startups. For something to be a revolution, it has to last for a while (otherwise it's just a rebellion, and a failed one on top of it), which is something directly opposite to the nature of startups. By definition, startups don't last -- they either disappear (either by failing or M&A), or they stop being startups and turn into "regular" companies. But, that being said, I still think that Paul is on to something -- the future model of a succesful company is not a large multinational conglomerate like IBM, Microsoft or Shell, which is too large for its own good and where, like with dinosaurs, it takes ages for a signal to travel from limb to brain and back. Instead, I believe that the future of companies lie in small, flexible and agile companies which have simple operations and global reach. This doesn't mean that a successful company should somehow prevent its own growth -- but it should grow in small units, sprouting new, smaller companies which operate on their own. My favo(u)rite example, which proves that this model works, is the Virgin Group, which includes lots of small to medium sized companies which operate in a number of different industries. For a traditional, centralized company such diversity would be a suicide, but in this case the companies are connected by the common brand and its messages.