> I'm wondering if his idea of a startup is the typical web 2.0 startup, where you slap a web framework on top of a database [...] I suspect that many more successful startups will start needing people who can do the algorithmic heavy lifting.
Couldn't agree more with you. Most of the current generation of start-ups is extremely boring. Quite frankly, looking at Techcrunch headlines is depressing. When you look at job requirements they post it's pretty much the same: they're looking for people to write CRUD screens in scripting languages. The current crop isn't about technology, it isn't about the people who enjoy writing non-trivial software and couldn't be happier that some one out there is willing to pay them for it (e.g., people mentioned in Graham's Great Hackers essay; reading that essay felt like music to my ears when I first read it and got me interested in the idea of startups in the first place).
This is opposed to those who see technology as just a means to wealth creation (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, there are plenty of "boring" problems that nonetheless benefit humanity when they're solved). That's not to say the founders aren't smart: many are coming from top schools, leaving Google etc... to start their companies; that makes it even more explicit that they're not there to solve interesting problems, they're there for something else. It looks like an awful waste of talent.
Out of the web 2.0 crowd, when you look at the successes, you'll also notice that they're ones solving non-trivial problems (machine learning/recommendation systems, graph algorithms, scalability and efficiency, etc...).
I'd love to see more technology startups emerge (i.e., those who do something technology-wise that no one else dares to try). It's a riskier route, but it's also more rewarding: you'll be able to attract more passionate people who would be more willing to actually take the risk even if the pot of gold isn't in sight (e.g., without VC funding a 100mm+ valuation).
As a founder of a startup in the "boring" category, I really disagree with your take on this.
I used to be all about the great technological breakthroughs, the really cool algorithms, all the stuff you mention. But as I got older, my interests shifted to other areas: making kickass applications that people love, designing usable interfaces, etc.
"[T]hat makes it even more explicit that they're not there to solve interesting problems, they're there for something else. It looks like an awful waste of talent."
See, that's where I disagree. I think it takes a great deal of talent to create software that helps people. It takes different talent than creating a great algorithm, but it definitely takes talent. That's why so much software has terrible interfaces and is an unusable mess.
And it takes even more talent to create something which truly shapes humanity. A lot of the companies that have made the biggest impact have no technological breakthroughs whatsoever: it's all breakthrough on all those "boring" things. Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, they've all done amazing things by solving "trivial" problems.
I cant agree with this comment more, even when I look at the problems that exist in my life (which is far more inclined to be technical than average), not a whole lot of them require technical breakthroughs or "exciting programming".
Music and TV streaming would be one for me that has only been solved recently for me (by spotify and tvcatchup), the streaming problems have been long solved, but convincing the stakeholders to be a part of this business took a long time with many failed attempts, even now spotify arent able to launch in the US because of these problems.
Online banking and micropayments would be another problem in that category that has not been solved as yet. while writing an online bank is hard, it is still at the core a crud system, however its impact on users lives are massive.
While I do love programming, I have come to realise it isnt the technical challenge I enjoy, its the benefits I can bring to peoples lives that I really enjoy.
Couldn't agree more with you. Most of the current generation of start-ups is extremely boring. Quite frankly, looking at Techcrunch headlines is depressing. When you look at job requirements they post it's pretty much the same: they're looking for people to write CRUD screens in scripting languages. The current crop isn't about technology, it isn't about the people who enjoy writing non-trivial software and couldn't be happier that some one out there is willing to pay them for it (e.g., people mentioned in Graham's Great Hackers essay; reading that essay felt like music to my ears when I first read it and got me interested in the idea of startups in the first place).
This is opposed to those who see technology as just a means to wealth creation (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, there are plenty of "boring" problems that nonetheless benefit humanity when they're solved). That's not to say the founders aren't smart: many are coming from top schools, leaving Google etc... to start their companies; that makes it even more explicit that they're not there to solve interesting problems, they're there for something else. It looks like an awful waste of talent.
Out of the web 2.0 crowd, when you look at the successes, you'll also notice that they're ones solving non-trivial problems (machine learning/recommendation systems, graph algorithms, scalability and efficiency, etc...).
I'd love to see more technology startups emerge (i.e., those who do something technology-wise that no one else dares to try). It's a riskier route, but it's also more rewarding: you'll be able to attract more passionate people who would be more willing to actually take the risk even if the pot of gold isn't in sight (e.g., without VC funding a 100mm+ valuation).