Is Silicon Valley only interested in the problems of twentysomethings?(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Is Silicon Valley only interested in the problems of twentysomethings?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/27/is-silicon-valley-only-interested-in-the-problems-of-twentysomethings/
85 comments
Here is a strategy that I have heard repeated a few times: When you see a rhetorical question in the title of a news article, the answer is no. The answer is always no. The article may say maybe. But the answer is no. Just like that you've saved yourself a few minutes.
I've come to count on another thing too: someone on HN comments will always point out the answer is 'no' and then point out this generality, and then you'll often have a comment like mine point this out. :)
omg, I can create noisy posts, too.
ibid
Maybe I'll write an article with the title, "Is the answer to this question no?"
I see where you are headed. The answer is still no because you won't write the aforementioned article. You're clever.
Why are people posting articles like this to HN? Please stop :(
This account is new. Do you have another HN account? Have you been reading HN for a long time?
May I ask: what is it about this story that you dislike? (I'm not disagreeing with you. The article doesn't feel great. But there's potential: People sometimes wonder about what problems need solving, yet this group is mostly young, mostly white, mostly male; mostly well educated. How do these people burst that bubble to find the problems that other people have?)
Also, going to [new] and upvoting good stories is important and a good thing to do.
May I ask: what is it about this story that you dislike? (I'm not disagreeing with you. The article doesn't feel great. But there's potential: People sometimes wonder about what problems need solving, yet this group is mostly young, mostly white, mostly male; mostly well educated. How do these people burst that bubble to find the problems that other people have?)
Also, going to [new] and upvoting good stories is important and a good thing to do.
Seriously? That's utterly irresponsible. I hope you aren't a CEO.
That's not true, every time a founder becomes a parent they build shitty solutions to all those problems too :)
But seriously this whole angle frustrates me.
Who decided that Silicon Valley had to be held over hot coals for building software companies that solve problems and make money. Why does it always read like "they alone inherited the problems of the universe, and are choosing to build dickpic apps instead".
Everywhere in the world there are smart people working on dumb things. In SV there's lots more smart people, but the percentage doesn't change. Also some things look dumb but are actually genius in hindsight, so it's easy to criticise these as problems for twentysomethings today, but fast forward a decade and they're 'problems for the masses'
But seriously this whole angle frustrates me.
Who decided that Silicon Valley had to be held over hot coals for building software companies that solve problems and make money. Why does it always read like "they alone inherited the problems of the universe, and are choosing to build dickpic apps instead".
Everywhere in the world there are smart people working on dumb things. In SV there's lots more smart people, but the percentage doesn't change. Also some things look dumb but are actually genius in hindsight, so it's easy to criticise these as problems for twentysomethings today, but fast forward a decade and they're 'problems for the masses'
> Who decided that Silicon Valley had to be held over hot coals for building software companies that solve problems and make money.
It would appear that Silicon Valley did. Every mundane piece of software is going to 'change the world.' People are just waiting for that to happen.
It would appear that Silicon Valley did. Every mundane piece of software is going to 'change the world.' People are just waiting for that to happen.
A recent example of that: Google's Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen just wrote a new-agey sort of book explicitly taking that "we're here to change the world" angle.
They could've written a different book, more like one Warren Buffet might write, about the business of software and online services, and running a profitable company in the industry. But they don't appear to consider that to be the bar for success.
They could've written a different book, more like one Warren Buffet might write, about the business of software and online services, and running a profitable company in the industry. But they don't appear to consider that to be the bar for success.
At least some of Google's work has the possibility of changing the world: AI. Between self driving cars, natural interface methods, and data understanding, the future looks interesting.
On the other hand, yet another social network, photoshop filter app, todo list app, instant messaging app, advertising app, these are not going to change the world, though often heralded as such.
On the other hand, yet another social network, photoshop filter app, todo list app, instant messaging app, advertising app, these are not going to change the world, though often heralded as such.
Google's social network and list of apps are an attempt to stay relevant so they can change the world.
Doing expensive R&D without a money maker generally requires government help. I don't think Google wants to go that route.
Doing expensive R&D without a money maker generally requires government help. I don't think Google wants to go that route.
I'd argue that google's search changed the world. android is also changing the world.
I would much rather see people working on self-driving cars or solving problems that affect the world than see the 15784th to-do app, weather app, etc. Those only change the fortunes of a handful of people, let's be serious.
Self-driving cars are really genuinely good work.
Other than that, the continued development of AI/ML techniques mostly isn't changing the world. Miniaturizing the code and data, so that the masses can own their own AI/ML processors, that will change the world.
Other than that, the continued development of AI/ML techniques mostly isn't changing the world. Miniaturizing the code and data, so that the masses can own their own AI/ML processors, that will change the world.
Did you see the Google I/O keynote? They're looking at selling Android smartphones to the whole world, and they're not just talking about the Western world for once. I'd say that'd be pretty world-changing.
Because the technology industry depends on a lot of idealistic young workers putting in plenty of unpaid overtime, and no one ever motivated that commitment with a call to increase shareholder returns by 17%.
Unpaid overtime isn't legal in the United States where SF is, as far as I know.
What passes for "salaried time" in the US and SF is called unpaid overtime to everywhere else in the world.
Developers can always quit. The only reasons they don't is that they love to code, and they are hoping for an equity cash-out from an IPO or acquisition down the line.
>Developers can always quit. The only reasons they don't is that they love to code, and they are hoping for an equity cash-out from an IPO or acquisition down the line.
Or they need to feed their family.
Seeings as a lot (MOST!) developers are not "rock stars" by any stretch of the imagination, don't make that much, and some are not willing to relocate to another state/city.
Or they need to feed their family.
Seeings as a lot (MOST!) developers are not "rock stars" by any stretch of the imagination, don't make that much, and some are not willing to relocate to another state/city.
I've heard that if you're a "good" developer it shouldn't be too hard to get at least 100k a year if you try. Seems like a pretty good amount to me. Depends where you live, I guess - that might only go as far in SF as 80 would go elsewhere, or something like that.
Are you familiar with the word "salary"?
After researching the issue deeper, apparently there are exceptions to the time-and-a-half regulation, and programmers are an exception. I'm not sure why you're specifically mentioning the word salary though.
Many people are not paid for their time (wages). Instead they're paid a fixed rate (a salary).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary#United_States
I think what jimmaswell was getting at is that salary does not equate to overtime exempt. There's plenty of overlap, but salaried workers who aren't exempt get paid overtime on a calculated basis.
While we claim people are addicted to FB etc because of their devices, it's somehow okay to let developers drive themselves mad so that we can ask 10 years later: So what IDE do you think axed your brain?
Startups will categorically enfeeble more people than any war. And we'll do it in the name of GTD and competition with our own machines.
Startups will categorically enfeeble more people than any war. And we'll do it in the name of GTD and competition with our own machines.
Correct. Dates back to at least the interaction between Jobs and Sculley to wit: "Do you want to sell sugared water for the rest of your life? Or do you want to come with me and change the world?".
It's much easier to get young people to buy into a dream of changing the world and making money than it is to buy into a dream of making money w/o changing the world.
Reminds me a bit of the Capone quote something like "You get more with a gun and a smile than a smile alone.."
It's much easier to get young people to buy into a dream of changing the world and making money than it is to buy into a dream of making money w/o changing the world.
Reminds me a bit of the Capone quote something like "You get more with a gun and a smile than a smile alone.."
It's funny that Jobs implied that selling sugar water is somehow less world changing than what Jobs/Apple was doing at the time. I happened across this video [0] the other day, "Coca-Cola Small World Machines - Bringing India & Pakistan Together". Coca-cola has the means to do just as much "world changing" as any other company, and seems to. (albeit, Jobs was talking about Pepsi, not Coke, but it's still the "sugar water" industry).
I wonder if Jobs thought in 2001 that selling MP3 players was the kind of thing he was thinking about when he said "change the world".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts_4vOUDImE
I wonder if Jobs thought in 2001 that selling MP3 players was the kind of thing he was thinking about when he said "change the world".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts_4vOUDImE
Nothing in "change the world" says that the change needs to be positive or needs to solve one of the Big Problems (poverty, hunger, energy, etc).
Silicon Valley is often quite pleased with itself, and there's more than one "Ignore the complexities of your problem, what would solve this is five guys in San Francisco and a hackathon!" article drifting around out there.
I suspect that's what gets things laid on the shoulders of SV. If its teeming with smart, driven, visionary people with Yankee Know-How and a Can Do Attitude (tm), surely they can do something genuinely spectacular, instead of just inventing a clever way to order pizza.
I suspect that's what gets things laid on the shoulders of SV. If its teeming with smart, driven, visionary people with Yankee Know-How and a Can Do Attitude (tm), surely they can do something genuinely spectacular, instead of just inventing a clever way to order pizza.
Path makes money?
It's hard to design and create software for subjects you don't know much about. It's not really a surprise that people create software for their own lives.
A lot of open source is focused on programming languages, libraries and things to help you code. It's what most open source people know, and thus what they create.
I wonder if it would have been better for CS to have been only offered as a minor or double-major to another field of study, at least at the Bachelor level. We would have fewer pure CS people, but a lot more people with training in another domain.
A lot of open source is focused on programming languages, libraries and things to help you code. It's what most open source people know, and thus what they create.
I wonder if it would have been better for CS to have been only offered as a minor or double-major to another field of study, at least at the Bachelor level. We would have fewer pure CS people, but a lot more people with training in another domain.
I second this! or something similar, at least. Having not really gone to college, myself, I was lucky enough to have had so many varied life experiences and interests before I took up tech; so when talking to my colleagues who are cs-equipped, I find their methodology is often very CS oriented, and focused more on the tech than on the problem. I think that's why "design" has become such a big fad these days - it's almost as if we just figured out that people buy products, not tech.
That being said, after speaking with quite a few tech-inclined people, I feel they would be a lot more comfortable with less technically inclined subjects if they were stripped of the general cultural pretensions that they come with. There is a very strong resistance to "acculturation" among techies, as it is usually seen - rightly, for the most part - as a mechanism of enforcing a "cool kids' club", so to speak, rather than an actual venue for intellectual exploration.
I think, that as techies, we are in a unique situation, as far as intellectual development is concerned. The vast majority of the population can't appreciate technical phenomena because it is culturally viewed as "too hard" or "robotic" or "blah blah, boring". We, OTOH, actively refuse to engage with humanistic pursuits, but not out of any perceived difficulty so much as discomfort with the pretensions that come with "cultured society". If effort can be made to induct some history and philosophy, and heck, maybe even theology into the the techie culture, we could have the best of both worlds and possibly even have some truly fresh ideas put out.
In short, it's easier to teach a physicist to write essays than it is to teach a poet Diff Eq
That being said, after speaking with quite a few tech-inclined people, I feel they would be a lot more comfortable with less technically inclined subjects if they were stripped of the general cultural pretensions that they come with. There is a very strong resistance to "acculturation" among techies, as it is usually seen - rightly, for the most part - as a mechanism of enforcing a "cool kids' club", so to speak, rather than an actual venue for intellectual exploration.
I think, that as techies, we are in a unique situation, as far as intellectual development is concerned. The vast majority of the population can't appreciate technical phenomena because it is culturally viewed as "too hard" or "robotic" or "blah blah, boring". We, OTOH, actively refuse to engage with humanistic pursuits, but not out of any perceived difficulty so much as discomfort with the pretensions that come with "cultured society". If effort can be made to induct some history and philosophy, and heck, maybe even theology into the the techie culture, we could have the best of both worlds and possibly even have some truly fresh ideas put out.
In short, it's easier to teach a physicist to write essays than it is to teach a poet Diff Eq
You characterize the situation very well.
It reminds me of the parody of the academic left in sci fi such as the novels of Neal Stephenson and Vernor Vinge. And the parodies of religion and philosophy are even worse.
It certainly came as a shock to me to realize that much of academia is simultaneously incoherent and pretentious, and full of deep insights.
It reminds me of the parody of the academic left in sci fi such as the novels of Neal Stephenson and Vernor Vinge. And the parodies of religion and philosophy are even worse.
It certainly came as a shock to me to realize that much of academia is simultaneously incoherent and pretentious, and full of deep insights.
Domain knowledge is important; however, even more important is domain experience. With domain experience, you learn where the bottlenecks and pain points are in your workflows.
During my time as an interest rate risk analyst, I had the displeasure of working with a horrible piece of software. It crashed at the most inopportune times, usually near the end of a run. Considering that one run could be on the order of a few hours, you could lose a significant portion of your computing time, something in short-supply when other business processes don't get you your input until seven to ten business days within a new monthly reporting cycle. When it did finish, the probability that there was a problem with the final output was much larger than it should have been. Furthermore, the software could not even be used for actually analyzing your results. You still needed to dump out the calculations to Excel before finishing your analysis.
On the surface, it would seem that the hardest part of solving this problem would be implementing the software as it's a highly specialized area of finance with lots of mathematics. When you break it down, however, what needs to be done on the software side is pretty straightforward.
I had to document this stuff for regulatory purposes at my old job. To document this stuff, I had to do a lot of "reverse engineering" of this software, basically building in Excel the same calculations performed by the software. If any person or group of people near Mountain View are looking for a problem to solve, I'd gladly sit down with you one evening and answer questions about this space.
During my time as an interest rate risk analyst, I had the displeasure of working with a horrible piece of software. It crashed at the most inopportune times, usually near the end of a run. Considering that one run could be on the order of a few hours, you could lose a significant portion of your computing time, something in short-supply when other business processes don't get you your input until seven to ten business days within a new monthly reporting cycle. When it did finish, the probability that there was a problem with the final output was much larger than it should have been. Furthermore, the software could not even be used for actually analyzing your results. You still needed to dump out the calculations to Excel before finishing your analysis.
On the surface, it would seem that the hardest part of solving this problem would be implementing the software as it's a highly specialized area of finance with lots of mathematics. When you break it down, however, what needs to be done on the software side is pretty straightforward.
I had to document this stuff for regulatory purposes at my old job. To document this stuff, I had to do a lot of "reverse engineering" of this software, basically building in Excel the same calculations performed by the software. If any person or group of people near Mountain View are looking for a problem to solve, I'd gladly sit down with you one evening and answer questions about this space.
That's very interesting stuff. I don't live in Mountain View, but I do work in controlling and I do deal with inefficient software on a daily basis.
What this comes down to is safety/reliability vs speed and efficiency. If you can get a workable extraction, even if we are talking GB's of data (never happened to me, we are always below 1GB and we struggle with it because all has to go in Excel), you could work out a good solution. However, most companies use software that makes extracting data impossible (welcome to SAP). Partly this is due to complexity in users rights, partly is just people ignorance.
This is a very complex domain problem, especially because a SaaS most of the times is not an option because we are talking about very sensible data.
What this comes down to is safety/reliability vs speed and efficiency. If you can get a workable extraction, even if we are talking GB's of data (never happened to me, we are always below 1GB and we struggle with it because all has to go in Excel), you could work out a good solution. However, most companies use software that makes extracting data impossible (welcome to SAP). Partly this is due to complexity in users rights, partly is just people ignorance.
This is a very complex domain problem, especially because a SaaS most of the times is not an option because we are talking about very sensible data.
I don't know about "only". Sometimes it's good to have a narrow focus on CS topics if you are going to implementing difficult low level stuff that only other techies will touch directly. It's also possible to get knowledge of other fields from places outside of academia.
Most UK universities do offer CS as a joint degree with other subjects, though in many cases they are limited to mainly other STEM subjects. I don't know anyone who studied joint CS/art history for example.
Most UK universities do offer CS as a joint degree with other subjects, though in many cases they are limited to mainly other STEM subjects. I don't know anyone who studied joint CS/art history for example.
My university offered a undergrad CS major with a business minor that was pretty popular.
True, in fact many universities offer a dedicated "business computing" degree which seems to be a CS degree with a lot of the theory stripped out and some business modules added.
Though these courses often have a stigma amongst people who consider themselves "techies".
Though these courses often have a stigma amongst people who consider themselves "techies".
If so, it's probably only because young adults are more likely to use the internet and therefore have problems that can be solved by the internet.
The internet can't really fix your problems if you don't use it in the first place. Or maybe it could, but you will never know better.
The internet can't really fix your problems if you don't use it in the first place. Or maybe it could, but you will never know better.
Twenty years ago, this might have been true. I don't think it is today.
I'm 60 years old, and while I'm somewhat unusual in that computers and tech have been part of my life, both personally and professionally, for half my life, I would have to think pretty hard to come up with someone in my circle of friends and relatives in the 50-80 age range who doesn't use the Internet. My 80 year old aunt has a desktop, an iPad and an iPhone. My 81 year old landlady spends an average of 4 hours a day online. Just examples.
We could debate their "expertise" in using the Web or software/apps in general. On the whole, given the kinds of questions I end up fielding from them and others, it isn't particularly high. But then again, that may actually be the fault of the software itself, much of which is difficult for someone for whom tech is not an abiding interest to understand. I spent 10 years reviewing software full-time, and it was often a struggle for me to forget what I knew and judge it from the standpoint of the average Joe.
At any rate, I think it's a canard to say that older adults (or even senior citizens, since I guess I am one now) don't use the Internet. They may not use it the way someone younger does, but that doesn't mean they don't use it.
I'm 60 years old, and while I'm somewhat unusual in that computers and tech have been part of my life, both personally and professionally, for half my life, I would have to think pretty hard to come up with someone in my circle of friends and relatives in the 50-80 age range who doesn't use the Internet. My 80 year old aunt has a desktop, an iPad and an iPhone. My 81 year old landlady spends an average of 4 hours a day online. Just examples.
We could debate their "expertise" in using the Web or software/apps in general. On the whole, given the kinds of questions I end up fielding from them and others, it isn't particularly high. But then again, that may actually be the fault of the software itself, much of which is difficult for someone for whom tech is not an abiding interest to understand. I spent 10 years reviewing software full-time, and it was often a struggle for me to forget what I knew and judge it from the standpoint of the average Joe.
At any rate, I think it's a canard to say that older adults (or even senior citizens, since I guess I am one now) don't use the Internet. They may not use it the way someone younger does, but that doesn't mean they don't use it.
You're probably right. But SV's startup culture is pretty unfriendly to 50-80 year old enployees with family and financial obligations and less risk tolerance.
I suppose SV companies are going to tend to solve young adult problems because they are composed of young adults. It's what they know.
I suppose SV companies are going to tend to solve young adult problems because they are composed of young adults. It's what they know.
Your description of SV startup culture isn't unique - it seems to be pretty much SOP for virtually any company these days. Lose your job after 50 and finding an equivalent position can be daunting.
>I suppose SV companies are going to tend to solve young adult problems because they are composed of young adults. It's what they know.
It's not only what they know, it's what they think is cool as well. And that's okay - I think a lot of the software I look at today is cool, too. But is it useful to me? Nope.
I'm no student of business, but it does seem to me that historically an awful lot of companies have been started by young people who saw a market or niche that needed to be filled, and filled it. How hard would it be for a start-up (or existing tech company) to get a couple of panels of 50-80 year olds together and find out what they'd find useful, and then produce it? You can make the argument that 20-somethings have more disposable income, but I doubt a couple dollar smartphone app or ten buck piece of desktop software is going to break any senior citizen's budget.
>I suppose SV companies are going to tend to solve young adult problems because they are composed of young adults. It's what they know.
It's not only what they know, it's what they think is cool as well. And that's okay - I think a lot of the software I look at today is cool, too. But is it useful to me? Nope.
I'm no student of business, but it does seem to me that historically an awful lot of companies have been started by young people who saw a market or niche that needed to be filled, and filled it. How hard would it be for a start-up (or existing tech company) to get a couple of panels of 50-80 year olds together and find out what they'd find useful, and then produce it? You can make the argument that 20-somethings have more disposable income, but I doubt a couple dollar smartphone app or ten buck piece of desktop software is going to break any senior citizen's budget.
It sounds like there's actually a few untapped markets out there that no one is even thinking about. That's a shame.
But why is "startup" synonymous with "consumer internet startup"?
We are software people, we solve problems with software - not just with the internet, and not just for the mass public.
Today was the launch day of the bike-sharing program in NYC and I've taken a few bikes out for a spin. The whole system is plugged into a (supposedly) impressive backend that will allow the city to gain an unprecedented insight into cycling patterns and drive the future of not only bike sharing but also cycling infrastructure development in general.
Why is it that when we think "startup" we don't think about problems like this, and instead we only think about mass market consumer internet applications used exclusively by young adults?
We solve problems with software. The fact that we've pigeonholed Silicon Valley into strictly solving end-user-young-adult-internet problems is our fault.
We are software people, we solve problems with software - not just with the internet, and not just for the mass public.
Today was the launch day of the bike-sharing program in NYC and I've taken a few bikes out for a spin. The whole system is plugged into a (supposedly) impressive backend that will allow the city to gain an unprecedented insight into cycling patterns and drive the future of not only bike sharing but also cycling infrastructure development in general.
Why is it that when we think "startup" we don't think about problems like this, and instead we only think about mass market consumer internet applications used exclusively by young adults?
We solve problems with software. The fact that we've pigeonholed Silicon Valley into strictly solving end-user-young-adult-internet problems is our fault.
"[Packer]’s clearly onto something in the way the experience of continuously solving seemingly insoluble technical problems can lead the technocracy to dismiss the challenges of actual societies or, worse, decide they’re simply above them."
This rings true for a number of issues in San Francisco. Let's underfund our public transportation and make taxis inefficient and hard to find -- we'll let the free market solve those problems! Corporate shuttles and a thousand taxi hailing apps will make up the difference.
Except they don't. I can't take a corporate shuttle to buy groceries or go out at night, and the cab situation in San Francisco is embarrassing. How do people here think they're living in the future when they can't even run basic infrastructure?
You can order food or hail a cab with your phone in any city. I only know of one city where idiots who will tell you this is revolutionary.
This rings true for a number of issues in San Francisco. Let's underfund our public transportation and make taxis inefficient and hard to find -- we'll let the free market solve those problems! Corporate shuttles and a thousand taxi hailing apps will make up the difference.
Except they don't. I can't take a corporate shuttle to buy groceries or go out at night, and the cab situation in San Francisco is embarrassing. How do people here think they're living in the future when they can't even run basic infrastructure?
You can order food or hail a cab with your phone in any city. I only know of one city where idiots who will tell you this is revolutionary.
i just looked at your comments on a hunch and i was right: most of your comments have to do with shitting on san francisco. cool hobby
I think this is a by product of 20 somethings being the most sought after group by advertisers combined with them being the most likely to try new things without a lifetime of bias towards the status quo.
The best part of Silicon Valley is brilliant people solving hard problems. In the beginning, there were a lot of talented, bright you people with not a lot of business sense. And it showed in their draw towards 'sexy' problems. But, as that space got incredibly crowded and, to a large degree, 'solved', people moved on.
I am a 20-something and was drawn to Silicon Valley to work on payroll specifically because I saw it as a sign that SV was 'growing up.' Not every company is working on social-local-mobile-freemium-gaming, and that is incredibly refreshing.
I am a 20-something and was drawn to Silicon Valley to work on payroll specifically because I saw it as a sign that SV was 'growing up.' Not every company is working on social-local-mobile-freemium-gaming, and that is incredibly refreshing.
Well, it's probably harder to meaningfully shift the way older consumers live in general. Between regulations and routine, business has an increasingly difficult time selling to us as we age. For all the dollars in pharma, grandma still won't take her pills and grandpa won't get rid of that old beater. Etc.
There's an article on HN right now about setting up a MacBook for grandma. And everyone talks about how great an iPad has been for the elderly.
I don't think they're stubborn, they're just different. I also don't think they're cheap either, because an iPad (let alone a MacBook) is still a consumer electronic luxury.
I don't think they're stubborn, they're just different. I also don't think they're cheap either, because an iPad (let alone a MacBook) is still a consumer electronic luxury.
[deleted]
A similar question I wanted to ask: "Who are all this skaters, hip hop singers wannabees, surfers, brooming indie artists" and such BS that 99% of ads, videos and startup media material seems to target to?
I've been all around the US (literally: the 48 states), and those are like 1% of the youth population, if that.
I've been all around the US (literally: the 48 states), and those are like 1% of the youth population, if that.
I think that the assumption of the New Yorker that Airbnb is only for twentysomethings is not correct (I can't speak about Uber).
I'm 33 years old and living in Europe. Between my passions there is dancing tango. This actually involves a lot of traveling to international festivals where to meet and dance different people. There are many of these events and many dancers are really dedicated, traveling around a lot, sometimes almost every weekend. In this situation it gets really helpful to travel on a budget, even if there are not many people in their 20s in the community. As a result Airbnb is getting the de facto choice for the community of the 30-40 years old international traveling dancers.
I'm 33 years old and living in Europe. Between my passions there is dancing tango. This actually involves a lot of traveling to international festivals where to meet and dance different people. There are many of these events and many dancers are really dedicated, traveling around a lot, sometimes almost every weekend. In this situation it gets really helpful to travel on a budget, even if there are not many people in their 20s in the community. As a result Airbnb is getting the de facto choice for the community of the 30-40 years old international traveling dancers.
What is more frustrating to me is that so much of the startup focus is in Silicon Valley and ascertaining viability for these disruptive service is wholly dependent on the SV set's adoption rate.
Some of these businesses should spend more time planning the logistical and strategic side of rolling out satellites to other markets (maybe even as a franchise model) to see if uptake rates change based on cost off living, regional preference, different geographical factors, etc.
What plays in tech saavy SV, the NW, New York, and Austin might be different than in Tampa, Pittsburgh, St. Paul, and Phoenix.
Does anyone agree?
Some of these businesses should spend more time planning the logistical and strategic side of rolling out satellites to other markets (maybe even as a franchise model) to see if uptake rates change based on cost off living, regional preference, different geographical factors, etc.
What plays in tech saavy SV, the NW, New York, and Austin might be different than in Tampa, Pittsburgh, St. Paul, and Phoenix.
Does anyone agree?
Today's 20 somethings are tomorrows 30 and 40 somethings. Get them hooked young and you can milk them for a lifetime.
It's probably easier to persuade a 20 something to try something new. I know middle aged people who choose smartphones by waiting for their kids to each buy different ones and then choosing one of these for themselves.
It's probably easier to persuade a 20 something to try something new. I know middle aged people who choose smartphones by waiting for their kids to each buy different ones and then choosing one of these for themselves.
Its useful for the non-tech press to point out that no, we're not only solving problems for young people with more disposable income than they know what to do with. It does suggest that there is a very good business to be had 10 - 15 years from now as these people mature and now do need to do something with that income but that is a different article :-)
One wave of things I'm looking for (and it's seems to be foreshadowed with things like the maker movement) is spontaneous manufacturing. Places where you need something built and a bunch of people, using tools in their garage or workshop, contribute parts where a co-ordinator assembles into widgets.
One wave of things I'm looking for (and it's seems to be foreshadowed with things like the maker movement) is spontaneous manufacturing. Places where you need something built and a bunch of people, using tools in their garage or workshop, contribute parts where a co-ordinator assembles into widgets.
Speaking for myself, I can perceive a few problems with the tech industry: one more (but not entirely) individual, one more (but not entirely) cultural, and one more (but not entirely) legal/economic.
The cultural one is simply that Silicon Valley and the tech sector in general currently constitute one of the last remaining vestiges of the upper-middle class and the petite bourgeoisie in an otherwise recessionary and degrading Western society. Others refer to us occasionally as the "Tech Sector Master Race". Forgive the 4chan slang, but that is how we come across sometimes: as a little nerdy subculture that smugly walks through a world we don't quite belong to, demanding coffee and consumer electronics and thinking about our investment accounts while other people think about making rent. And the worse the rest of society gets, the worse this effect will become. See below.
The individual one is that, frankly, I have too easy a time contenting myself with my gadgetry to see wide-open markets, and when I do see an idea, I expect the corporate behemoths to colonize it first. An undergrad here at Technion once came and talked to me about starting a groceries-delivery service here in Israel. I immediately thought of Stop&Shop's Peapod, before realizing we don't have anything like that here. Then my next thought was, "What, people can't be bothered to go to the market?" It's easy to overlook opportunities to solve others' pain points just because you personally don't have a lot of pain points (which ties right back in to techies being so massively fortunate!).
The legal/economic one is that productizing technology has gotten very hard. I'm always glad to see more hardware start-ups and such, but people often hesitate to commit money to unknown companies. Then software is more and more functionally impossible to sell in a shrink-wrapped box as a product (due to piracy and upgrades), people hate advertisements, non-corporate users hate paying subscription fees for software because they think they bought their copy, and people are still demanding ever more quality for fixed or shrinking prices. Lastly, technology has gotten less and less "do it yourself" and more and more "black box", pushing all kinds of things underground. Overall, the path from tinkering to a product to a sale to tinkering again has gotten longer, and that's what drives the endless rounds of "social-mobile-local Big Data cat-picture analytics apps". And of course, this also goes right back to large parts of society being unable to afford innovative luxury goods produced by the tech sector. A game console that costs $400 now instead of $200 ten years ago wouldn't be that much of a problem if the cost of living had stayed the same or if wages had doubled (before inflation, even). They haven't.
So until we find some ways to fix this stuff, Silicon Valley is going to be stuck catering to the one audience who will consistently buy into Silicon Valley, that being Silicon Valley.
The cultural one is simply that Silicon Valley and the tech sector in general currently constitute one of the last remaining vestiges of the upper-middle class and the petite bourgeoisie in an otherwise recessionary and degrading Western society. Others refer to us occasionally as the "Tech Sector Master Race". Forgive the 4chan slang, but that is how we come across sometimes: as a little nerdy subculture that smugly walks through a world we don't quite belong to, demanding coffee and consumer electronics and thinking about our investment accounts while other people think about making rent. And the worse the rest of society gets, the worse this effect will become. See below.
The individual one is that, frankly, I have too easy a time contenting myself with my gadgetry to see wide-open markets, and when I do see an idea, I expect the corporate behemoths to colonize it first. An undergrad here at Technion once came and talked to me about starting a groceries-delivery service here in Israel. I immediately thought of Stop&Shop's Peapod, before realizing we don't have anything like that here. Then my next thought was, "What, people can't be bothered to go to the market?" It's easy to overlook opportunities to solve others' pain points just because you personally don't have a lot of pain points (which ties right back in to techies being so massively fortunate!).
The legal/economic one is that productizing technology has gotten very hard. I'm always glad to see more hardware start-ups and such, but people often hesitate to commit money to unknown companies. Then software is more and more functionally impossible to sell in a shrink-wrapped box as a product (due to piracy and upgrades), people hate advertisements, non-corporate users hate paying subscription fees for software because they think they bought their copy, and people are still demanding ever more quality for fixed or shrinking prices. Lastly, technology has gotten less and less "do it yourself" and more and more "black box", pushing all kinds of things underground. Overall, the path from tinkering to a product to a sale to tinkering again has gotten longer, and that's what drives the endless rounds of "social-mobile-local Big Data cat-picture analytics apps". And of course, this also goes right back to large parts of society being unable to afford innovative luxury goods produced by the tech sector. A game console that costs $400 now instead of $200 ten years ago wouldn't be that much of a problem if the cost of living had stayed the same or if wages had doubled (before inflation, even). They haven't.
So until we find some ways to fix this stuff, Silicon Valley is going to be stuck catering to the one audience who will consistently buy into Silicon Valley, that being Silicon Valley.
Minor nitpick. Video game consoles and games are equal price or cheaper than old ones when adjusted for inflation. Here are a couple articles I found to support that.
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/706637/video-game-infl...
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/10/an-inconvenient-truth-...
Wow, thanks for letting me know. I hadn't realized that.
(Though admittedly, that makes the financial outlook of games companies even worse.)
(Though admittedly, that makes the financial outlook of games companies even worse.)
Yeah it's one of those things that is really counterintuitive, probably because we tend to underestimate inflation. I thought the opposite as well until I ran across an article a little while back.
My startup was made to solve problems of older people that has children...
But maybe, like the article theorises in the start, because the person that had the idea was in that group himself (my associate, and CEO of the company, had the idea to make apps for children after not finding enough apps for his own children and hearing comments from his similarly-aged friends about the same subject).
But maybe, like the article theorises in the start, because the person that had the idea was in that group himself (my associate, and CEO of the company, had the idea to make apps for children after not finding enough apps for his own children and hearing comments from his similarly-aged friends about the same subject).
I would say yes, it is biased towards twentysomethings because
1) they have disposable income and more easily part with it, and
2) they are more likely to create a tech solution (and surrounding business) to a problem they are familiar with.
Disclosure: I'm in my 30s but had similar wide-eyed dreams in my 20s of creating some big piece of tech that would net me millions.
I think software tends to favor the young. In general the biggest companies in tech were founded by younger people.
Google - Founded by 20 somethings Apple - Founded by 20 something Facebook - Founder by 20 something Amazon - Founded by 20 something
So they solve problems for a younger generation.
Google - Founded by 20 somethings Apple - Founded by 20 something Facebook - Founder by 20 something Amazon - Founded by 20 something
So they solve problems for a younger generation.
For the record, Jeff Bezos was 30 when he founded Amazon.
The problem with this is they are not run by 20-somethings now. If they were working on 20-something problems because they were 20-somethings, why haven't they moved on?
Also, I wouldn't categorize Amazon as solving problems for a younger generation.
Also, I wouldn't categorize Amazon as solving problems for a younger generation.
A lot of the problems these companies cover are interesting to everyone. Search is interesting to everyone, maintaining a social network is interesting to everyone, buying stuff online is interesting to everyone.
Cab-sharing is not interesting to everyone. Staying in strangers' homes instead of a hotel isn't interesting to everyone. Taking photos of your meals and sharing it with friends is not interesting to everyone.
Cab-sharing is not interesting to everyone. Staying in strangers' homes instead of a hotel isn't interesting to everyone. Taking photos of your meals and sharing it with friends is not interesting to everyone.
Apologies for the self-promotion, but at NoRedInk, we are funded, have traction, and are hiring while improving the status quo of grammar education.
Silicon Valley is interested in finding solution to problems that make money, just like every other industry.
Silicon Valley is more similar to Wall Street than it cares to admit.
twentysomethings are interested in the problems of twentysomethings.
One thing that seems to be lost between the article and the comments - it's not just twentysomethings. It's twentysomethings "with cash on hand".
That adds a degree of self-indulgence to the description. It's not just twentysomethings solving the problems of people their age, tackling the questions of their generation, but solving the problems of (at least culturally) affluent, employed tech workers with disposable income.
That adds a degree of self-indulgence to the description. It's not just twentysomethings solving the problems of people their age, tackling the questions of their generation, but solving the problems of (at least culturally) affluent, employed tech workers with disposable income.
s/problems/money/
The hypercompetitive culture makes SV a series of silos. We may be working workstation-to-workstation, but just as you drive along the interstate, it's a series of anonymous silos of farmers loosely affiliated, if that.
And any shoplifting guide worth its weight will tell you that those farmers are screwing you over in at least 3 different ways via strict affiliations with government and taxation, price gouging the market, and transportation costs, along with manipulative garned relationships with the GroceryStoreCartel(tm), all while you fancy the philosophical scenario of whether they're interested in your problems.
You as a driver should move along, or learn the road.
The only response to "Does some large group X care about me?" is Hanlon's Razor.
And any shoplifting guide worth its weight will tell you that those farmers are screwing you over in at least 3 different ways via strict affiliations with government and taxation, price gouging the market, and transportation costs, along with manipulative garned relationships with the GroceryStoreCartel(tm), all while you fancy the philosophical scenario of whether they're interested in your problems.
You as a driver should move along, or learn the road.
The only response to "Does some large group X care about me?" is Hanlon's Razor.
Most new companies fail, but not all. Apple and Google were founded by twenty-somethings, and in the early days, nobody was certain what they would become. The key is to keep trying stuff, even ideas that might seem unusual.
One group that displays much 'irritating self-regard' are east-coast pundits who write on subjects they don't understand.
One group that displays much 'irritating self-regard' are east-coast pundits who write on subjects they don't understand.
"Imagine how odd it would be to read an article saying that the people who work for manufacturing firms are really just out to make money, or that they don’t seem interested enough in current events. It is only because Silicon Valley has done such an extraordinary job branding itself that articles about their social conscience, or lack thereof, seem completely reasonable. But the tech sector is, on the whole, much more like other sectors of the economy than it likes to believe, or than it likes anyone else to believe."