>people that are past the age of 50 and are trying to start a mobile, local, social startup but really are not capable
Not "all people past the age of 50 -are- incapable", just people who are so incapable they don't recognize the credibility they lack due to external influential but not necessarily exclusive factors like their age, background, and appearance. I think all of us could rattle off a list of 50+ year old "geezers" that could pull something like this off, but the reality is that many of them can barely use a cell phone. If your presentation doesn't include measures to address that assumed, pre-programmed credibility gap, which often means just talking about things in a way that demonstrates you know what you are talking about and actually can navigate around Android, then you likely don't (yet) have the realism or the drive necessary to make something go.
The 50+ remark is just a way to say "This guy looks like he can barely use Outlook", or "This guy is out of touch". Perhaps not the most well-considered illustration, but I think we can get the OP's point without throwing a politically correct hissy-fit.
I think all of us could rattle off a list of 50+ year old "geezers" that could pull something like this off, but the reality is that many of them can barely use a cell phone.
What a load of crap. A 50 year old today could easily have been a 20 year old AI programmer in 1980, and he probably knows more about technology than the rest of us put together. Computers aren't actually that new, ya know, and are not the exclusive domain of the GenY kids.
I mean, for crying out loud, COBOL first appeared in 1959, LISP in 1958, FORTRAN in 1957, and ALGOL in 1960. There are folks around who have been programming longer than most HN readers have been alive.
There are technically literate and technically illiterate people of all ages, the 50+ thing is pretty much bullshit as any sort of generalization.
Obviously I never meant to imply that there were no programmers who are 50+. In fact, I work with some of them, and I respect them greatly.
I don't have any hard data, but I can say, anecdotally, most 50+ are not "techies" and they don't know their way around a computer system. I believe this belief is rather common.
I think some 50+ year olds would make exceptional startup founders. However, an older person who may be founding a "social, local, mobile" startup because he's looking for a career change is going to have a credibility gap because of the general impression that older people are not technically minded. If the pitcher doesn't have a strong compsci background or history to counteract that notion, he'll have to make up for it in the presentation.
We are all free to pontificate on whether this is a fair generalization or not, but I think it is clearly that it is commonly held and something an older founder will have to face and address if he wants to succeed.
I don't have any hard data, but I can say, anecdotally, most 50+ are not "techies" and they don't know their way around a computer system. I believe this belief is rather common.
OK, that might actually be a fair point, if you're talking about the population of 50+ people at large. But in the context of "people founding tech startups," my guess would be that pretty much any "50+ tech startup founder" probably is a techie, or is at least pretty tech savvy.
Now if you had J. Random 50+ guy who had spent his entire career as a tobacco company accountant and he suddenly showed up saying he was founding "The Next Instagram," then maybe there would be some reason to go "hmmm... wait a minute." But, honestly, I think you could subtract the "50+" part of that and the point would be exactly the same. Would it matter if J. Random 25 year old tobacco company accountant showed up and said "I'm founding The Next Instagram?" Wouldn't the reason for the skepticism be the individual's background and experiences, and not their age?
We are all free to pontificate on whether this is a fair generalization or not, but I think it is clearly that it is commonly held and something an older founder will have to face and address if he wants to succeed.
Probably, but I wouldn't want to be in the business of helping perpetuate this kind of ageism.
Ageism is just as inappropriate as sexism or racism. The tech industry seems to be going through growing pains with respect to sexism, but ageism is apparently still widely acceptable.
At some point in life it becomes hard to do something you have not done before. You can get better at what you are already doing (e.g. Going from 20bn to 40bn like Warren Buffett after 60), but it's harder to go from 0 to 1m, since this involves new stuff, a qualitative change.
As I said, I read that line as an illustration of an obvious incongruity between the company the founder is trying to pitch and the perception of the background and qualifications of the founder. Age plays into this, and if the 50+ founder doesn't have a strong history in compsci/startups/whatever, the assumptions generally attached to 50+-year-old sales people will stick. As such, the founder will need to recognize that he needs to establish credibility with the audience before he can successfully sell them on his ultra-hip location-aware social tweeter app. Generalizations and stereotypes are a reality that founders must shape to their advantage.
> Generalizations and stereotypes are a reality that founders must shape to their advantage.
I think this is ultimately true. Whether the bias is justified or not, the best founders will be aware of it and work to make up for it. The same could be said for bias against women in technology, for example.
That being said, I still believe this bias is wrong, and am concerned that this VC so publicly shared it, because to me, his publicly sharing it indicates that he's not even aware there's anything wrong with it. I do not believe a 50 year-old should have to work any harder than a 24 year-old in proving that they have what it takes to run a social startup.
What does it tell you? I am trying to understand what you mean. Do you believe every person the author met over the age of 50 is in fact capable of building compelling social products, and that the author has misjudged them?
This tells me everything I need to know about this ass monkey.