5 ms·

It is sad that with all the would-be entrepreneurs flocking to Silicon Valley and looking for startup ideas, they all shy away from 'hard' problems like disrupt

by cmsmith 12y ago

It is sad that with all the would-be entrepreneurs flocking to Silicon Valley and looking for startup ideas, they all shy away from 'hard' problems like disrupting the current ISP model.

sounds 12y ago
Well, I wouldn't say they _all_ shy away from it. But I agree with your premise, that hard problems with large rewards require a different sort of VC pitch and may take longer to see a payoff. And are completely worth pursuing!
na85 12y ago
It's easier to write a javascript framework than it is to solve the hard problems.
- bicknergseng 12y ago
  If by easier you mean "doesn't require vast amounts of capital" then yah.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
    I don't think you can claim that it's "solving" the problem if you can throw money at it. That's the business-world equivalent of "brute forcing"... and what we've learned from technology is that you're required to throw ever-larger amounts of resources at the problem until it eventually overwhelms any real-world capacity to "solve" it.
psychometry 12y ago
I think that smart people in both business and technology are attracted to hard problems that are intellectually challenging. Dealing with the corruption and the entrenched bureaucracy of local, state, and federal governments doesn't qualify as an "interesting" problem for these types of people. It's why you don't see many scientists in elected office.
- fixermark 12y ago
  I used to feel the same way, except that this really boxes "intellectually challenging" into a fascinatingly narrow set of problems. The meme that dealing with problems of physics and mathematics is somehow harder or more noble than dealing with problems of people should probably be considered harmful.
  - psychometry 12y ago
    I don't think my definition is narrow or restrictive at all. You're forgetting all the other fields of human interest, like the humanities, healthcare, transportation, engineering, the arts, etc. That's a pretty wide swath and only a small subset of the "interesting" problems in those fields are dependent on getting your hands dirty with politics.
- r00fus 12y ago
  It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that those fighting corruption are so often tarred and feathered and hung up as examples? Just take a look at Aaron Swartz, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden.
  - wmf 12y ago
    I would say that fighting corruption is the opposite approach to getting things done politically.
baddox 12y ago
It's not too surprising. Look at the crap companies like Uber and AirBnb get, even on HN, for disrupting government rackets. I would shy away from that as well, even though there's obviously big opportunities there.
- elpachuco 12y ago
  Only to become yet another racket. And maybe even more harmful than the last one.
exelius 12y ago
There are many types of hard problems. Some are hard because the data just isn't there, and someone needs to connect the dots. The ISP model is hard because it just requires fucking shit tons of money to solve, and there's no getting around the tragedy of the commons problem. With telecom infrastructure, you can either use wired (expensive and with a heavily fragmented regulatory environment) or wireless (expensive with extremely limited spectrum - see the $12+ billion spectrum auction happening now). Disruption is well and good, but it requires new technology that delivers similar services for a fraction of the cost. Until someone figures out a way to bring the economics of delivering content to end users down by a factor of several hundred, we're stuck with the current ISP situation.
- wmf 12y ago
  BTW, speaking of gigabit disruption in San Francisco: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gigabit-wireless-to-the-home--2 https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gigabit-wireless-to-the-h...
  - exelius 12y ago
    Even technologies like this face many of the same challenges as traditional wired or wireless solutions: operating at any sort of scale is tremendously expensive. I wouldn't call this "disruptive" as much as a local workaround to an ineffective local regulatory system.
  - infocollector 12y ago
    This is full of problems as far as i understand. Google and read more about it?
    - freeasinfree 12y ago
      What problems?
      - exelius 12y ago
        Requires line of sight, is expensive, has high latency, and is somewhat flaky. I know someone who has this service in San Francisco - they only have it because it's literally their only option besides ADSL.
kansface 12y ago
The problem is that ISPs don't need disruption- local politics does. As hard as starting a new bank or writing a new OS is, who wants to sign up for disrupting every local and state government in the country and incur the cost of laying all that fiber? This is why only Google is doing it. They have the money to burn and the clout to get municipalities to cooperate through all or nothing deals.

by cmsmith 12y ago

It is sad that with all the would-be entrepreneurs flocking to Silicon Valley and looking for startup ideas, they all shy away from 'hard' problems like disrupting the current ISP model.

sounds 12y ago

Well, I wouldn't say they _all_ shy away from it. But I agree with your premise, that hard problems with large rewards require a different sort of VC pitch and may take longer to see a payoff. And are completely worth pursuing!

na85 12y ago

It's easier to write a javascript framework than it is to solve the hard problems.

bicknergseng 12y ago
If by easier you mean "doesn't require vast amounts of capital" then yah.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  I don't think you can claim that it's "solving" the problem if you can throw money at it. That's the business-world equivalent of "brute forcing"... and what we've learned from technology is that you're required to throw ever-larger amounts of resources at the problem until it eventually overwhelms any real-world capacity to "solve" it.

psychometry 12y ago

I think that smart people in both business and technology are attracted to hard problems that are intellectually challenging. Dealing with the corruption and the entrenched bureaucracy of local, state, and federal governments doesn't qualify as an "interesting" problem for these types of people. It's why you don't see many scientists in elected office.

fixermark 12y ago
I used to feel the same way, except that this really boxes "intellectually challenging" into a fascinatingly narrow set of problems. The meme that dealing with problems of physics and mathematics is somehow harder or more noble than dealing with problems of people should probably be considered harmful.
- psychometry 12y ago
  I don't think my definition is narrow or restrictive at all. You're forgetting all the other fields of human interest, like the humanities, healthcare, transportation, engineering, the arts, etc. That's a pretty wide swath and only a small subset of the "interesting" problems in those fields are dependent on getting your hands dirty with politics.
r00fus 12y ago
It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that those fighting corruption are so often tarred and feathered and hung up as examples? Just take a look at Aaron Swartz, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden.
- wmf 12y ago
  I would say that fighting corruption is the opposite approach to getting things done politically.

baddox 12y ago

It's not too surprising. Look at the crap companies like Uber and AirBnb get, even on HN, for disrupting government rackets. I would shy away from that as well, even though there's obviously big opportunities there.

elpachuco 12y ago
Only to become yet another racket. And maybe even more harmful than the last one.

exelius 12y ago

There are many types of hard problems. Some are hard because the data just isn't there, and someone needs to connect the dots. The ISP model is hard because it just requires fucking shit tons of money to solve, and there's no getting around the tragedy of the commons problem. With telecom infrastructure, you can either use wired (expensive and with a heavily fragmented regulatory environment) or wireless (expensive with extremely limited spectrum - see the $12+ billion spectrum auction happening now). Disruption is well and good, but it requires new technology that delivers similar services for a fraction of the cost. Until someone figures out a way to bring the economics of delivering content to end users down by a factor of several hundred, we're stuck with the current ISP situation.

wmf 12y ago
BTW, speaking of gigabit disruption in San Francisco: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gigabit-wireless-to-the-home--2 https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gigabit-wireless-to-the-h...
- exelius 12y ago
  Even technologies like this face many of the same challenges as traditional wired or wireless solutions: operating at any sort of scale is tremendously expensive. I wouldn't call this "disruptive" as much as a local workaround to an ineffective local regulatory system.
- infocollector 12y ago
  This is full of problems as far as i understand. Google and read more about it?
  - freeasinfree 12y ago
    What problems?
    - exelius 12y ago
      Requires line of sight, is expensive, has high latency, and is somewhat flaky. I know someone who has this service in San Francisco - they only have it because it's literally their only option besides ADSL.

kansface 12y ago

The problem is that ISPs don't need disruption- local politics does. As hard as starting a new bank or writing a new OS is, who wants to sign up for disrupting every local and state government in the country and incur the cost of laying all that fiber? This is why only Google is doing it. They have the money to burn and the clout to get municipalities to cooperate through all or nothing deals.