5 ms·

Despite the echo-chamber of SV and tech media, most successful founders are older, with real world industry experience.[0] This data probably doesn't reflect t

Despite the echo-chamber of SV and tech media, most successful founders are older, with real world industry experience.[0] This data probably doesn't reflect the insane number of 20 somethings chasing ideas in markets like the dating space right now. Most of them fail. I work in the senior care market and I'm shocked there aren't more businesses being started around that market. It's absolutely huge with endless opportunity. But I guess that kind of proves your point... [0]https://hbr.org/2014/04/how-old-are-silicon-valleys-top-founders-heres-the-data/ https://hbr.org/2014/04/how-old-are-silicon-valleys-top-foun...

bliti 11y ago
I'll gladly chat about that market over email. It's always interesting to learn about such things. Where should I email you?
balls187 11y ago
> This data probably doesn't reflect the insane number of 20 somethings chasing ideas in markets like the dating space right now. Most of them fail. Without being ageist, I think that you see a disproportionate number of younger founders simply because their current situation better allows for taking risks. When you have a family and are are responsible for at least 1/2 the household income, that choice becomes a lot harder. My theory is that age is only a proxy for success, given that most businesses fail because they run out of money. Older founders may have access to larger war chests than younger founders.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  Older founders' main contribution is a larger war chest of experience to draw from, even if they also have larger personal networks and some personal savings to make them less dependent on the seed-stage investor. I personally believe that if investors were more willing to make the startup calculation reasonable for stable adults, we'd have far better results at the macro level. 20-somethings are cool, but they are still very young and very naive. It seems most non-tech industries have already internalized that. Tech will eventually mature into that realization as technically-adept generations age.
  - scardine 11y ago
    Being naive - in the sense of looking the world through the eyes of a child - is one of the best qualities in a founder because startups are so counterintuitive. How many grown-ups with lots of industry experience said no for young Microsofties, Googles or Facebooks? - A social network for college students? What a stupid idea!
    - beat 11y ago
      Look at it this way... older founders may be less likely to create a unicorn, but they're more likely to create a business.
      - fsk 11y ago
        I'm more interested in starting a business that has a 90% chance of being worth $10M than a business that has a 1% chance of being worth $1B. A business that has a 90% chance of being worth $10M isn't suitable for VC.
        balls187 11y ago
        Perhaps I'm missing something, but the expected value is higher on the 1% chance for 1B
        fsk 11y ago
        As a founder, you only get to invest in one business at a time, so the high chance of $10M is worth more than the longshot chance of $1B. Even if the latter has higher EV, the former has higher average quality-of-life EV. Working as an employee vs owning a $10M business is a BIG lifestyle jump. From $10M to $1B, not as much.
    - balls187 11y ago
      Founders aren't children. They are typically post college graduates. And they typically must include one that has an engineering degree, hopefully with some pedigree to it.
- beat 11y ago
  I feel that pain. I just spent months building the alpha of my own software, making no money with grownup expenses. Then my wife got laid off, so I had to jump in and get another dayjob so someone would be making money. I don't really have access to any sort of a larger war chest. What I do have is a much better idea than Snapchat for Drunks, because I have a lot of real-world professional experience, and I know how to actually build complex software, because I've been doing it for decades. My killer is overcoming the cautious nature of too many years in the enterprise. It's easy to overbuild and not be lean.
billyhoffman 11y ago
This. My startup is part of the ATDC Select program/incubator in Atlanta. There are roughly 30 companies around various verticals. I'm in my early 30's and I'm among the youngest of the founders. Many of these people are in their late 30's/40's/or more and been through multiple startups. (funny enough maybe 20% of the companies are healthcare related, so maybe there are doing what they know) Maybe in other places startups are a only-kids game, but not here.
- madcaptenor 11y ago
  See for example http://academicvc.com/2013/07/05/startups-for-grownups/ http://academicvc.com/2013/07/05/startups-for-grownups/ regarding the idea that Atlanta startups aren't just for kids.
- beat 11y ago
  Minneapolis is a bit like that, too. I think the real interesting angle here is the enterprise. We are to Fortune 500 as Silicon Valley is to startups - there are more Fortune 500 HQs per capita here than anywhere else in the world, including the Bay area, NYC, London, and Tokyo. It's still a fledgling movement, but I think we will see more and more startups here emerging from the corporate giants, developing new tools to meet their needs.
exelius 11y ago
Yeah, you're right. But if you look at the really big companies, nearly all were started by young founders (Facebook, Google, etc.) And that's what kids (and the media) focus in on. IMO experienced founders are great for building a cash cow business worth $1 billion or so. That takes hard work and a billion dollars is a fucking lot of money, so it's nothing to scoff at. But it's not primarily what VCs are interested in: the VC model is built off of small equity stakes in $10 billion+ IPOs. To have a $10 billion+ IPO, you need to invent a market, and young kids are great at that because they don't see the limitations the market has placed on us. Most don't have the fucking slightest about finance or money, which can be an impediment if you're trying to create a product in an existing market, but if you're building a new market or category, short-term viability matters less. That said, there are a lot more ideas that can turn into successful $1 billion companies than ideas that can become $100 billion companies. So your odds are a lot better at starting a successful business if you learn how first. And to your point about senior care... most VCs who don't focus on health care avoid it entirely for similar reasons they avoid dating apps. You can either go the medical device/biotech route and spend hundreds of millions on lawyers and regulatory approvals, or you can go after the provider side of things. The healthcare IT space is pretty saturated and very fragmented, so it ends up scaling like a consulting business (which VCs are also not fond of).
- eaihga 11y ago
  i'm curious, is your opinion based on research, or is it just fanciful extrapolations from a starting point of 'Facebook and google were started by young people'? Because frankly, most of the ideas contained in your post don't seem like they actually stand up to scrutiny. For example, your idea that "kids don't see the limitations the market has placed upon us" only makes sense if you believe: a) that young founders don't understand existing markets; and b) that old founders can't imagine a world other than the existing world; and c) a failure to understand existing markets creates an advantage; and d) a failure to understand existing markets does not create an offsetting disadvantage; and e) an understanding of existing markets does not create an advantage; and f) an understanding of existing markets only creates disadvantages. Do you have proof of any or all of these? Your arbitrarily chosen metric for success was a huge ($10b+) exit. If we do that, only ONE of the ten largest IPOs was a young kid (Zuck at FB), and even there, he wasn't reimagining a market per your thesis, he was doing something entirely new. I really, really wish HN had a way to flag 'eloquently stated bullshit', because it's dangerous when people like you open their mouths. You confidently and eloquently say shit that's just totally fucking wrong, and you make everyone dumber. It feeds your ego and it kills the world. Fucking shut your dumb mouth.
fsk 11y ago
>I work in the senior care market and I'm shocked there aren't more businesses being started around that market. It's absolutely huge with endless opportunity. But I guess that kind of proves your point... Senior/health care is heavily regulated, making it hard to innovate and undercut legacy providers. "Uber for old age homes" just doesn't work.
- JonFish85 11y ago
  Transportation is fairly heavily regulated as well. Someone could probably do an Uber for old folks that ignores laws and pushes the liabilities onto "independent contractors".
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    Maybe. But a few scandal stories will kill that idea. Everyone wants a cab. No one wants a geriatric care home - not even when they're living in one. Having said that, I recently discussed some possibilities with a couple of local care home owners. Currently there isn't enough smartphone take up to make some obvious ideas viable, but that will start changing soon, and then there may be some very rich pickings to be had. This is the real reason Apple etc are piling into health apps. The biggest buyers won't be marathon-running twenty year olds, but scared-of-death >fifty year olds.
tjr226 11y ago
Hey, I'm interested in chatting with you about the opportunities you see... I'm not in SV and would be happy creating a sub-$1bn company. What's a good way to get in touch with you?

bliti 11y ago

I'll gladly chat about that market over email. It's always interesting to learn about such things. Where should I email you?

balls187 11y ago

> This data probably doesn't reflect the insane number of 20 somethings chasing ideas in markets like the dating space right now. Most of them fail. Without being ageist, I think that you see a disproportionate number of younger founders simply because their current situation better allows for taking risks. When you have a family and are are responsible for at least 1/2 the household income, that choice becomes a lot harder. My theory is that age is only a proxy for success, given that most businesses fail because they run out of money. Older founders may have access to larger war chests than younger founders.

cookiecaper 11y ago
Older founders' main contribution is a larger war chest of experience to draw from, even if they also have larger personal networks and some personal savings to make them less dependent on the seed-stage investor. I personally believe that if investors were more willing to make the startup calculation reasonable for stable adults, we'd have far better results at the macro level. 20-somethings are cool, but they are still very young and very naive. It seems most non-tech industries have already internalized that. Tech will eventually mature into that realization as technically-adept generations age.
- scardine 11y ago
  Being naive - in the sense of looking the world through the eyes of a child - is one of the best qualities in a founder because startups are so counterintuitive. How many grown-ups with lots of industry experience said no for young Microsofties, Googles or Facebooks? - A social network for college students? What a stupid idea!
  - beat 11y ago
    Look at it this way... older founders may be less likely to create a unicorn, but they're more likely to create a business.
    - fsk 11y ago
      I'm more interested in starting a business that has a 90% chance of being worth $10M than a business that has a 1% chance of being worth $1B. A business that has a 90% chance of being worth $10M isn't suitable for VC.
      - balls187 11y ago
        Perhaps I'm missing something, but the expected value is higher on the 1% chance for 1B
        fsk 11y ago
        As a founder, you only get to invest in one business at a time, so the high chance of $10M is worth more than the longshot chance of $1B. Even if the latter has higher EV, the former has higher average quality-of-life EV. Working as an employee vs owning a $10M business is a BIG lifestyle jump. From $10M to $1B, not as much.
  - balls187 11y ago
    Founders aren't children. They are typically post college graduates. And they typically must include one that has an engineering degree, hopefully with some pedigree to it.
beat 11y ago
I feel that pain. I just spent months building the alpha of my own software, making no money with grownup expenses. Then my wife got laid off, so I had to jump in and get another dayjob so someone would be making money. I don't really have access to any sort of a larger war chest. What I do have is a much better idea than Snapchat for Drunks, because I have a lot of real-world professional experience, and I know how to actually build complex software, because I've been doing it for decades. My killer is overcoming the cautious nature of too many years in the enterprise. It's easy to overbuild and not be lean.

billyhoffman 11y ago

This. My startup is part of the ATDC Select program/incubator in Atlanta. There are roughly 30 companies around various verticals. I'm in my early 30's and I'm among the youngest of the founders. Many of these people are in their late 30's/40's/or more and been through multiple startups. (funny enough maybe 20% of the companies are healthcare related, so maybe there are doing what they know) Maybe in other places startups are a only-kids game, but not here.

madcaptenor 11y ago
See for example http://academicvc.com/2013/07/05/startups-for-grownups/ http://academicvc.com/2013/07/05/startups-for-grownups/ regarding the idea that Atlanta startups aren't just for kids.
beat 11y ago
Minneapolis is a bit like that, too. I think the real interesting angle here is the enterprise. We are to Fortune 500 as Silicon Valley is to startups - there are more Fortune 500 HQs per capita here than anywhere else in the world, including the Bay area, NYC, London, and Tokyo. It's still a fledgling movement, but I think we will see more and more startups here emerging from the corporate giants, developing new tools to meet their needs.

exelius 11y ago

Yeah, you're right. But if you look at the really big companies, nearly all were started by young founders (Facebook, Google, etc.) And that's what kids (and the media) focus in on. IMO experienced founders are great for building a cash cow business worth $1 billion or so. That takes hard work and a billion dollars is a fucking lot of money, so it's nothing to scoff at. But it's not primarily what VCs are interested in: the VC model is built off of small equity stakes in $10 billion+ IPOs. To have a $10 billion+ IPO, you need to invent a market, and young kids are great at that because they don't see the limitations the market has placed on us. Most don't have the fucking slightest about finance or money, which can be an impediment if you're trying to create a product in an existing market, but if you're building a new market or category, short-term viability matters less. That said, there are a lot more ideas that can turn into successful $1 billion companies than ideas that can become $100 billion companies. So your odds are a lot better at starting a successful business if you learn how first. And to your point about senior care... most VCs who don't focus on health care avoid it entirely for similar reasons they avoid dating apps. You can either go the medical device/biotech route and spend hundreds of millions on lawyers and regulatory approvals, or you can go after the provider side of things. The healthcare IT space is pretty saturated and very fragmented, so it ends up scaling like a consulting business (which VCs are also not fond of).

eaihga 11y ago
i'm curious, is your opinion based on research, or is it just fanciful extrapolations from a starting point of 'Facebook and google were started by young people'? Because frankly, most of the ideas contained in your post don't seem like they actually stand up to scrutiny. For example, your idea that "kids don't see the limitations the market has placed upon us" only makes sense if you believe: a) that young founders don't understand existing markets; and b) that old founders can't imagine a world other than the existing world; and c) a failure to understand existing markets creates an advantage; and d) a failure to understand existing markets does not create an offsetting disadvantage; and e) an understanding of existing markets does not create an advantage; and f) an understanding of existing markets only creates disadvantages. Do you have proof of any or all of these? Your arbitrarily chosen metric for success was a huge ($10b+) exit. If we do that, only ONE of the ten largest IPOs was a young kid (Zuck at FB), and even there, he wasn't reimagining a market per your thesis, he was doing something entirely new. I really, really wish HN had a way to flag 'eloquently stated bullshit', because it's dangerous when people like you open their mouths. You confidently and eloquently say shit that's just totally fucking wrong, and you make everyone dumber. It feeds your ego and it kills the world. Fucking shut your dumb mouth.

fsk 11y ago

>I work in the senior care market and I'm shocked there aren't more businesses being started around that market. It's absolutely huge with endless opportunity. But I guess that kind of proves your point... Senior/health care is heavily regulated, making it hard to innovate and undercut legacy providers. "Uber for old age homes" just doesn't work.

JonFish85 11y ago
Transportation is fairly heavily regulated as well. Someone could probably do an Uber for old folks that ignores laws and pushes the liabilities onto "independent contractors".
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Maybe. But a few scandal stories will kill that idea. Everyone wants a cab. No one wants a geriatric care home - not even when they're living in one. Having said that, I recently discussed some possibilities with a couple of local care home owners. Currently there isn't enough smartphone take up to make some obvious ideas viable, but that will start changing soon, and then there may be some very rich pickings to be had. This is the real reason Apple etc are piling into health apps. The biggest buyers won't be marathon-running twenty year olds, but scared-of-death >fifty year olds.

tjr226 11y ago

Hey, I'm interested in chatting with you about the opportunities you see... I'm not in SV and would be happy creating a sub-$1bn company. What's a good way to get in touch with you?