I don't agree with Tim O'Reilly on everything he says, but he does have a point. Now, I'll admit I'm envious of silicon valley startups. They get so much more public attention, they have more sources of funding, they are better connected, etc. But I think there is a danger to what happens there beyond personal envy.
It's not only easy to start a startup in SV (which is a good thing), it's also apparently easy to get funding for stuff that is mediocre and "solves problems" that look distinctly faddish (I know I should back this up with examples...). In fact, much of it doesn't solve existing problems at all but creates new kinds of activities for people. In a positive sense, new markets are being created. But I get wary when the proportion of startups creating new markets compared to those solving existing problems is so unusually high. Or maybe I'm simply missing the point of some of the social web because I'm not a teen any longer?
Even if much of what's happening in SV is a fad, that might not necessarily be a problem for startup founders, and moving to SV might still be the right thing to do. If someone is successfully riding a faddish wave they might still have fun and make money, which they can later use to do something else.
What troubles me more than what is happening is what is not happening. People with real problems and keen startup founders rarely get together. If they did, the energy of so many smart people could be directed at hard problems. These problems do exist in every industry. I don't believe in the "scratching your own itch" mandate. I'm sure, startup founders would be very interested in solving hard problems of others, if they only knew enough about them.
And that brings me to the point where I think O'Reilly is right. If startups were working on hard industry problems, they would not all converge on silicon valley. I believe there is a lot of potential in trying to bring startup founders and industry people together.
It's not only easy to start a startup in SV (which is a good thing), it's also apparently easy to get funding for stuff that is mediocre and "solves problems" that look distinctly faddish (I know I should back this up with examples...). In fact, much of it doesn't solve existing problems at all but creates new kinds of activities for people. In a positive sense, new markets are being created. But I get wary when the proportion of startups creating new markets compared to those solving existing problems is so unusually high. Or maybe I'm simply missing the point of some of the social web because I'm not a teen any longer?
Even if much of what's happening in SV is a fad, that might not necessarily be a problem for startup founders, and moving to SV might still be the right thing to do. If someone is successfully riding a faddish wave they might still have fun and make money, which they can later use to do something else.
What troubles me more than what is happening is what is not happening. People with real problems and keen startup founders rarely get together. If they did, the energy of so many smart people could be directed at hard problems. These problems do exist in every industry. I don't believe in the "scratching your own itch" mandate. I'm sure, startup founders would be very interested in solving hard problems of others, if they only knew enough about them.
And that brings me to the point where I think O'Reilly is right. If startups were working on hard industry problems, they would not all converge on silicon valley. I believe there is a lot of potential in trying to bring startup founders and industry people together.