- Very few of them are tacking any "big" problems. Perhaps this is a side effect of the so-called "lean startup" mentality, but I'd guess it is more a combination of lack of commitment/sticktuitiveness with the ADHD generation (both the entrepreneur and the investor), along with the quick flip mindset on the part of the investors. Ask most of these startups what their five year plan is, and you'll get a blank look. The core value propositions of many of these companies also do NOTHING to create substantial number of jobs, improve our competitive position in the world, help with solving the challenges of a resource constrained world, or in general, to improve peoples' lives.
- The vast majority of these so-called "innovative startups" are clones of some existing product, process, or service. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Foursquare should be very flattered. In chatting with some of these startups, if you ask them to differentiate their approach, you'll be presented with a list of relatively shallow and easily reproducable "features", as opposed to something innovative.
- A great many of them are focused in and around an advertising and/or media model. Either directly (web or marketing analytics), indirectly (ad-supported revenue model), or peripherally (content creators/providers for sites who will generate revenue via advertising). Ironic, since this is largely a zero-sum game, and overall advertising spend is down nearly 25% from its high water mark in 2007.
To elaborate on that last point, it seems that there is an implicitly incestuous relationship between online tech media (and event promoters) who generally purport to be neutral observers or independently opinionated pundits/visionaries and the success/failure of companies in the ad/media space. Additionally, the fact that these companies require little capital (since they create very little value) and are often acquired within a couple years of founding make for quick hits for investors, long before the "real" value, viability, or staying power of any of these companies is exposed. There are definitely a rare few exceptions that create real value, but those have become increasingly few and far between.
I guess it just pains me to see the country's best and brightest (or the world's best and brightest, for that matter), working on such vacuous and superficial projects, when there are so many more important areas that we could and should be applying their skills, our capital investment, and collective energy towards.
This dangerous trend threatens our long term competitiveness, economic security, and in many ways, our overall security. Think for moment if we had invested $1 trillion in alternative energy sources instead of being forced to place troops in harm's way to protect our petro-crack addiction. Imagine if we had invested more in telemedicine, more cost effective medical devices, and technologies to efficiently and cheaply provide clean water to the world's poor. I'm well aware that these areas *are* getting some investment, but they are not getting their fair share of visibility or attention, due to the incestuous connections outlined above.
Hey, odds are good that I could be completely wrong about the cause and effect, but it is plainly obvious to me that our technology press and pundits are saying way too much about the vanity plays and hollow startups and not enough about "stuff that matters", to paraphrase Tim O'Reilly's call for the nation's entrepreneurs to "work on stuff that matters".
Maybe we as a society, with our two minute attention span, are as much to blame. Maybe it's too much focus on the quarter-to-quarter mindset (which on its own isn't necessarily a bad thing) versus being able to take a multi-year or even multi-generational view. Maybe it's just plain old greed and a willingness to mortgage the future for short term gain. Whatever the reason, I hope we can fix it.
Rant over.
