I think a lot of people who can't "create" greatness can still inspire it -- especially when you've got a high profile like him. Regardless of what's he's done, I'd rather he write something like that an inspire a couple people than do nothing. Who's to say that's not greatness in itself?
I also agree with what he's saying in general, so maybe I'm a bit biased.
I also agree with what he's saying in general, so maybe I'm a bit biased.
What he is saying is that he wishes his startup didn't have such a hard time retaining tech talent from going and doing their own start-up. It's amazing how we see the same evil bitching from these founders deceptively repackaged as something more noble.
Regardless of whether there's an ulterior motive for him writing the piece, I think it's still a good reminder for everyone.
Take the who and the why out of the equation here and you're left with a pretty sobering point - there are bigger problems to solve than figuring out how to make people pay for nonsense in flash games on Facebook (no disrespect to Zynga'ers).
I actually disagree. Imagine someone saying "you suck as a human if you are working on _______". This piece is basically a softer version of that statement. Immediately, it makes you ask: who the heck are you to be saying this and what have you done?
And that's fine - I'm not affirming or denying that he's done anything meaningful. That's why I'm saying you should try to look at his statement by filtering out who is saying it, what they've done, and what their ulterior motive might be.
Does anyone disagree that there are bigger problems to be solved than are currently being tackled by many startups? Not that most startups can tackle the daunting task of solving some of these problems themselves (at least, not without some serious IP and capital), but it's useful for a bit of perspective. Are we really solving some fundamental problem in the world by perfecting daily deals? No - it's silly to argue otherwise.
"Are we really solving some fundemental problem by letting college kids at elite universities poke each other?"
--your line of argument applied to facebook in its early days
Ok, allow me to clarify my position: I agree with notion that there are more important problems to work on than many we see startups pursuing.
If you had to pick a primary point being conveyed by the column, would you pick A) there are many important problems that startups could be working on or B) the 100th Facebook engineer made a more meaningful impact on the world than some popular startup founders? I chose option A.
Regardless, you seem content to argue with me because I choose to acknowledge his point. I don't care who he is, what he's worked on, or what other credentials he has - I agree with his core message, that we should choose to work on bigger ideas that change the world, not meaningless ones.
As an aside, I do think it can be necessary to go with smaller ideas in order to cash out and pursue greater ones. Case in point: Elon Musk; while PayPal wasn't necessarily a small thing, it pales in comparison to his current endeavors, which I believe will have a long-lasting impact on the world.
Fair, but just like the twitter dude who founded banksimple, it's a hell of a lot easier for them to say, "Hey, you guys should be focused on making the world a better place instead of making bank" after, well, having made their own money. He/bank simple dude aren't choosing between having lots of disposable income and working on a startup that matters, whatever his definition of matter may be.
Yet I fear that our industry is squandering its opportunity and its talent. In
companies large and small, great minds are devoting their lives to endeavors that,
even if wildly successful, fail to do great things.
That quote is a little hard to stomach from someone who presumably will never again worry about making rent or paying for a college education for a child, etc. The rise of the lean startup -- what Ries, Blank, and even people like patio11 talk about -- is much more likely to do very well for the founders than being an employee at a change the world company. So I kind of feel like the employees / potential employees are being sold a line of crap by people who want them to make decisions contrary to their own financial interests.
That's a fair point. Mine was simply to point out that there was an idea that resonated with me, regardless of whether that point is muddled by hypocrisy.
I also agree with what he's saying in general, so maybe I'm a bit biased.