The trend toward smaller, nimbler start ups is evident. Even before the cheap money dried up there were clear signs that the core of start up success wasn't centered about MBAs or capital. Sure you can over shout competitors and grow at lightspeed given infinite cash, but a well designed piece of software needs craftsmanship and a bit of luck.
But it's also worrying that a modest bunch of engineers can launch billion dollar companies. How might this affect distribution of wealth, power, labour, private versus public sectors? What about governance of these companies?
(I'm not saying start ups have a duty to employ MBAs, hundreds of mediocre employees or accept venture cash they don't need. But I do worry.)
Point-solutions do tend to come before platform-solutions, so in the 'AI Gold-rush' we will of course get some odd point-solutions which are viable, as the cost to build them has come down so much.
Tom Blomfield, Founder of Monzo Bank (UK), invested in 70+ startups in the last 12 months and mentioned that some are coming to him 6-months post-launch with $50k ARR.
There'll be a lot of creative destruction while we settle on some platforms (rather than point-solutions) as the new 'normal'.
But it's also worrying that a modest bunch of engineers can launch billion dollar companies. How might this affect distribution of wealth, power, labour, private versus public sectors? What about governance of these companies?
(I'm not saying start ups have a duty to employ MBAs, hundreds of mediocre employees or accept venture cash they don't need. But I do worry.)