I posted this article because I thought it showed a remarkable lack of understanding of startups. It was frustrating and I'm surprised VentureBeat published it.
First of all, the authors issues with edTech startups might apply to any startup vertical: not doing enough customer research (ie. not "knowing your user"); solving a niche problem; working with slow-moving large institutions... etc. I'm convinced that every entrepreneur makes these mistakes at least once (no matter how many sage advisors counsel them otherwise).
Second of all, the author presumes that winners can be picked through pre-product research. Learning is intensely complex. The notion that building a product around existing assessment data is intriguing insofar as it informs a v1 product. ...but beyond that, shooting in the dark, learning from users/learners, and evolving the product is the generally accepted path in organic startups (and empirical research for that matter) -- and education is no different.
Third, the author is highly critical towards startups, using the word "suck." He doesn't seem to realize that this critical tone with which he now brushes of edTech startups out of hand is the embodiment of the intransigence that plagues academia.
It's almost as if the article was written unwittingly as a parody...
First of all, the authors issues with edTech startups might apply to any startup vertical: not doing enough customer research (ie. not "knowing your user"); solving a niche problem; working with slow-moving large institutions... etc. I'm convinced that every entrepreneur makes these mistakes at least once (no matter how many sage advisors counsel them otherwise).
Second of all, the author presumes that winners can be picked through pre-product research. Learning is intensely complex. The notion that building a product around existing assessment data is intriguing insofar as it informs a v1 product. ...but beyond that, shooting in the dark, learning from users/learners, and evolving the product is the generally accepted path in organic startups (and empirical research for that matter) -- and education is no different.
Third, the author is highly critical towards startups, using the word "suck." He doesn't seem to realize that this critical tone with which he now brushes of edTech startups out of hand is the embodiment of the intransigence that plagues academia.
It's almost as if the article was written unwittingly as a parody...