A big "problem" is that things are too easy actually. Slap together an MVP based on an obvious idea, execute it half-assedly on the ragged edge of competence, e

A big "problem" is that things are too easy actually. Slap together an MVP based on an obvious idea, execute it half-assedly on the ragged edge of competence, expand with VC money, make tens of millions at the lower end, maybe billions. Because so much of industry, the economy, etc. still hasn't been hit fully by the disruption of 21st century technology. Uber being the perfect example, disrupting an industry that had barely changed much in a century. There are countless similar examples. In SV you can snowclone your way to success because there's just so damned much low hanging fruit that hasn't been executed on hardly at all. The same's been true in the mobile space for years as well. Hardware wise, just rev the display and the proc. and you're golden, as long as the device wasn't garbage you could demand a huge profit margin (amplified further by the "subsidized" handset purchase model). Easy money makes for laziness. When google hit big they entered a tight market during an economic downturn. That's also when amazon started hitting its stride. But there is so much potential right now for easy money in tech that I suspect it'll be a long time, if ever, before economic pressures force a serious drive for innovation. But there's also a huge need for real innovation. Mobile devices are still largely consumption rather than creation devices, for example, though they have no shortage of capability. And there's a huge need for fundamental research into programming languages, operating systems, and especially software development as an activity (what works, what doesn't, in which situations and circumstances, and why, etc.) Consider, for example, how utterly lacking in universally acknowledge best practices is the development of firmware with potential safety implications.