« Jamie T | Main | The Age Question (final post) »
The Age Question (continued)
Brad suggested I write this post. I've been reluctant because I don't want to pick at this scab of a meme. I really don't want to be the guy who made it harder for anyone older than 30 to get funded in the web services market.
But I've been thinking about all the young entrepreneurs we are seeing walk through our offices. I've been thinking about Mark Zuckerberg, Rob Kalin, all the ycombinator entrepreneurs, and the 15 year olds who are hacking up facebook apps. You can't ignore it. There is something fundamental and important going on.
The answer lies in Marc Andreessen's words of wisdom about the web:
After an initial phase of the Web as a medium, in which lots of people attempted to make the Web look like a newspaper, or a magazine, or a TV channel, we as an industry have recently been collectively developing a much clearer idea of what the Web is really like as a medium in and of itself.
This has led to broad realization of a set of design patterns for how Web services and Web companies often get built and used.
Who is developing this "clearer idea"? Who is developing the set of "design patterns"? It's the younger generation. And its important to understand why.
It is incredibly hard to think of new paradigms when you've grown up reading the newspaper every morning. When you turn to TV for your entertainment. When you read magazines on the train home from work.
But we have a generation coming of age right now that has never relied on newspapers, TV, and magazines for their information and entertainment. They are the net natives. They grew up in AOL chatrooms, IMing with their friends for hours after dinner, and went to school with a Facebook login.
The Internet is their medium and they are showing us how it needs to be used.
Now don't get me wrong. We've only funded one of these net natives out of close to fifteen portfolio companies. We'll certainly fund more. There's a lot more we look for in an investment than a 23 year old design whiz.
But the truth is that some of the most interesting things I've seen this month and this year are the creations of kids who barely shave. And it's not an accident.
June 16, 2007 in Venture Capital and Technology | Permalink
Comments
Isn't it normally the case that the best entrepreneurs are those that understand their customer? What percentage of all these widgets and platforms are actively used by 40 year-old guys like me? As much as I play around with the stuff, my peer group doesn't and I'm not living it. I knew there was a good reason I avoided getting involved with these kinds of companies. Thanks for helping me understand why. I'll stick with trying to reinvent business apps.
Posted by: Dan Tiernan | Jun 16, 2007 7:17:58 AM
True many of the interesting web apps to arise this year are driven by younger innovators. The single biggest problem many of these apps are that they are features and not companies. In fact that is the brillance of Facebook. Facebook is now providing a platform where these apps can be revenue generating "companies". Think of it as web app version of eBay's retailing micro-companies.
I don't see any big problem with founders that are older. What is more instructive is the mix of key employees (and not necessarily the ones with VP titles). You can argue that many of the older founders are the MBA/banking background founders and it is this that really effects the performance of the company not the age of the founder.
Posted by: Simon Cast | Jun 16, 2007 8:01:27 AM
I think it totally depends what you've been doing earlier in your career.
I've been building disruptive media paradigms my whole career. I got sued out of business by a record label for "misuse" of the fair use laws back in 1988. I was doing video on demand in 1990. I was putting the web on TV in 1995. I was making the web social, interactive and fun in 1998.
Now do I think someone who has spent 20 years at McKinsey or Oracle, playing the office politics game is likely to suddenly change their spots and start trying to tear down the status quo rather than maintain it? No I don't. I think those people become entrepreneurs because it's a hot market.
But if you start out being a rabble rouser when you're young, you're likely to stay a rabble rouser until you're finished working.
Posted by: Erik Schwartz | Jun 16, 2007 9:00:18 AM
My take is that there is a big value in mixing new and old. You are right, younger guys think up of new ways of doing things, but patterns is something that exists in systems and time.
Often we see young guys running around claiming they invented this great new way of storing things only month later to discover that there are relational databases.
In other words, new guys make mistakes cause they do not know history. Wise guys know it and take advantage of the patterns in technology and business.
So I think pairing up youngsters with veterans gives you the most solid mix.
- Alex
Posted by: Alex Iskold | Jun 16, 2007 9:17:24 AM
Hi. My name is Eugene Gershin. I'd like to welcome you to Obadiah Shoher's blog, Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict.
Obadiah is a pen name of a politician. He writes extremely controversial articles about Israel, the Middle East politics, and terrorism.
Obadiah advocates political rationalism instead of moralizing. He is economic liberal and political conservative.
Google refused advertising our site and Amazon deleted reviews of Obadiah's book. Nevertheless, Obadiah’s is the largest Jewish personal blog, read by more than 100,000 people monthly. 210,000 people from 81 countries downloaded Obadiah’s book. The blog was voted the best overall in People’s Choice: Jewish and Israeli blogs Awards, received Webby Honoree and other awards.
Please help us spread Obadiah's message, and mention the blog in one of your posts, or link to us. We would greatly appreciate your comments at www.samsonblinded.org/blog
Best wishes,
Eugene Gershin
Jewrusalem.net – Israeli Uncensored News
Posted by: Eugene | Jun 16, 2007 10:09:39 AM
I am 52 years old and very much in the start-up game. Alex is right, the combo of disrupting youngsters and experienced business builders has proved successful many times (Google comes to mind). Older entrepreneurs starting their own business tend to go for the solid singles and doubles, not attempting to hit the ball out of the park every time. No harm in that, how many real mega-hits are there in each decade? Erik, I totally agree with you. I love the intensity and intellectual buzz of a start-up and in my brief period in a big company (when the start-up got acquired) I went stir crazy.
The interesting debate I think is between VC and PE. You could say that is the debate between young and old but that is too simplistic. Rupert Murdoch is 75 and he was smart enough to buy MySpace even though I seriously doubt he hangs out there. You don't need to be a teenager to understand demographics. Murdoch acted like a VC and an entrepreneur not like a mature conglomerate or PE fund.
The PE fund works by looking at last 10 years cash flow and projecting that out for another 10 years to justify debt leverage. VC looks at these mature businesses as ripe for disruption. In an economy growing at 3% both PE and VC cannot be right. My bet is on VC and disruption. In 30 years I have never seen a business environment that is more scary for incumbents and more exciting for disrupters. Cheap money, cheap labor, cheap technology and the Internet changing all the rules in just about every market is an incredible playground for entrepreneurs and a worry for those counting on those cash flows just projecting out forever.
So my 50 year old head agrees with my 20 year old heart.
Posted by: bernard lunn | Jun 16, 2007 10:43:28 AM
In architecture, your career does not start until you are over 50. Frank Gehry designed his best work when he was 70. Same for Frank Lloyd Wright. The point is there are two types of innovation. Disruptive flashes of brilliance and slow steady innovation. The reason why you are only seeing young kids is that your business model depends on the home run of a flash of innovative brilliance. 40 years olds are more likely to build a business growing 50%-100% a year where as a Google or a Facebook will give you 1000% a year. The difference being the large majority of 20 years olds will fail and the majority of 40 years olds will succeed. Slow and steady just has a different looking IRR. The slow steady approach is for investors in the stock market and angels. Over time we can argue which provides the better returns, but that is not the reason why you became a VC.
Posted by: Dan Cornish | Jun 16, 2007 10:58:59 AM
In other words, this is a temporary peak in young web entrepreneurs. 10 years from now, the more seasoned "natives" will be preferred over the young ones.
Posted by: DC | Jun 16, 2007 12:15:52 PM
In addition to the comments above about blending disruptive technology (younger) and managing it (older), there's also the target market component. I would expect start-ups focused on the consumer space to be founded by younger folks. Start-ups focused on enabling businesses are more likely to be started by older teams.
My 2-cents worth
Posted by: Bill | Jun 16, 2007 12:18:13 PM
Just to follow up a bit on the blended team thing...
Filo and Jerry brought TK and Jeff in really early.
Would Larry and Sergey have screwed it up without Eric Schmidt?
The classic of course is Steve Jobs. Is there any question that he is a VASTLY superior entrepreneur now than he was in his 20s? Just compare the Lisa and the 128K Mac to OSX and the iPod/ITMS combo.
Posted by: Erik Schwartz | Jun 16, 2007 12:28:49 PM
I agree that 20 year olds have an advantage because they're not married to old paradigms. This same thing happened during Web 1.0 of the 90's, people in their 20's had an advantage because they just did things in the most pragmatic and innovative way. They became bureaucratic and weighed down basically because there weren't any models on how to grow without doing that and at some point the middle managers take over and the priority becomes saving one's job rather than accomplishing new goals.
I think this time around it's most evident on the creative side. 20 year olds pick up a camera or do a podcast while older artists are like what, where, when, why? The world seems a rosier place for folks just getting out of college now than it has been for quite some time.
I think older (like 30 plus) people have a place in providing basic strategic planning, accounting, etc. The fact that people of all ages are more internet savvy than they've ever been and people are living longer than ever should remind people that yes, it's good to focus on the younger market, but the older boomer market and people older than them have a lot of money to spend at this point in their lives and shouldn't be neglected.
Posted by: angela penny | Jun 16, 2007 1:22:09 PM
Word of advice, as this market becomes increasingly competitive developing hardened baseless beliefs like ageism will inhibit your success. Venture capitalists better be on the look out for the best businesses even if the founder is 50 or your going to get your lunch eaten by nimbler more forward thinking competitors.
Posted by: Mike Miller | Jun 16, 2007 1:38:42 PM
Older people backing youngsters to get home runs is not new. Think of the music biz. One score with the Beatles allows for tons of duds. The cost to start-up online is not much more than a couple of guitars and a set of drums. Facebook/MySpace is about entertainment. The backers make a short intuitive bet on energy and passion and then wait to see if the audience connects (crank up the presses) or not (drop 'em like a ton of bricks).
Posted by: bernard lunn | Jun 16, 2007 2:04:01 PM
give it 6 years. the kids that are 19 or 20 years old now are the digital generation, the generation that laughs at the idea of paying for music and is aware that YouTube is a lot more interesting than propagandized television. most importantly, they've grown up on the new generation of video games (xbox, PSP), and will have a more intuitive understanding of how that's related to the web.
but they at least need to get a job, outgrow the frat party phase, and read a few books so they get an education before they come up with the real game changer. but once that happens....man, it's going to be very exciting.
Posted by: kid mercury | Jun 16, 2007 3:07:00 PM
It seems to me that as I've gotten older (32), I'm far less interested in outside funding. I would think that by 30 or so, you've established some form of residual income and do things at a slightly slower pace without all the overhead. Thus, VC isn't necessary.
Posted by: Matt | Jun 16, 2007 3:32:54 PM
I found your comment “When you read magazines on the train home from work” Really funny. I wonder what you propose as an alternative? I do read on my sidekick…but I’m really not happy with how the pictures look. Especially, if I am perusing an art site.
I think people read magazines and newspapers on trains because it’s a good use of personal time. Not because they are old…
oh wait, maybe those are the same thing!
Posted by: calvin | Jun 16, 2007 3:41:05 PM
You're making the mistaken assumption that the people changing the world are doing it in companies.
True innovation has nothing to do with the bottom line. If you can make a buck on it as an investor, it's not new, it's current.
Posted by: John Maxwell Hobbs | Jun 16, 2007 3:50:03 PM
I'm a 37-year old entrepreneur that started a boutique consultancy in NYC that is heavily focused on these emerging trends of the last few years. We're two years old and relatively successful (went from 2 employees to 25 in just over a year). (www.arc90.com).
I'm not sure if I'm the exception, but I don't think age has anything to do with it. The thing that starts to stunt creative thinking is the overwhelming inertia of a career path. You stop reading interesting stuff. You take less and less risks. Your brain hardens and stops changing.
A younger person hasn't been sucked into the vortex just yet - so they'll try stuff. As for me, I've made a conscious effort to ring the alarm as soon as things get too comfortable.
I talk some more about this very topic on my blog:
http://www.basement.org/2007/05/situps_for_the_brain.html
Posted by: Rich Ziade | Jun 16, 2007 5:08:29 PM
why just stop at entrepreneurs..more and more LPs should look for younger VCs to allocate their funds.. the barrier to entry is still high in VC field..otherwise we would have seen dramatic results in the investor domain as well.. Fred, when are you retiring?
Posted by: retire VCs | Jun 16, 2007 5:18:25 PM
This is nothing new. Microsoft was started by 20 somethings, Apple was as well. Netscape too, plenty more can be brought to light as evidence that nothing has changed in so much as coders are young relatively speaking. As they get older, they often find themselves managing others which takes them out of the game so to speak. Give me one example of a coder in his or her 40's who has god like status and I'll eat my words.
Perhaps Fred and the rest of us who may be over 30 are a generation older than the teens and 20 somethings, and WE now feel that, just as our first bosses did when we began our careers. Just because Fred now feels that generation gap doesn't mean this is new. Ask John Doerr how many 20 somethings he's funded this year, or ever for that matter. How many 20 somethings are CEO's of public companies? What 20 something is a CFO of any public, or venture funded company for that matter?
To only believe in funding very young entrepreneurs or give more credibility to 20 somethings vs 30-40 year olds is naive at best. Using Zuck as an example is like setting Tiger Woods' rounds at the US Open as the cut mark. Your population of viable options to fund just got reduced to one, and your too late to get in on it.
On the surface this seems like a sly way to distance oneself from the rest of the "suit and tie" Financiers that, for right or wrong, are often viewed as being out to screw you(the entrepreneur).
Posted by: tomo | Jun 16, 2007 6:08:42 PM
I guess the lessons of the dot-bomb have now been fully forgotten. 8 years ago VCs and investment bankers were telling everyone that would listen that the internet changed everything and that eyeballs were more important than earnings.
Just think of all the businesses that you AREN'T seeing because those of us who DIDN'T win the lottery prior to 2000 learned that shortcuts and brass rings are for chumps and that ensuring success with positive cash flow and keeping control of your company is preferable to buying a VC lottery ticket.
Posted by: Jonathan Peterson | Jun 16, 2007 6:23:55 PM
i think there are plenty of people with disruptive ideas of all ages. i think a winnowing process as a function of age occurs when people with these ideas sucuumb to discouragement as they fail and fail and get neglected. people with experience KNOW that there are plenty of good ideas in that world of the 1970s+ which have been forgotten in the youthful push to use the Here And Now. yet, certain key ideas -- the lambda calculus being preeminent in my book -- are GROWING in dominance, as they should. yet that stuff has long been considered the material of the academics or the fringe crazies.
what i see is that this youthful exuberance, irrational exuberance, or as Adam Smith called it, "animal spirits", gives people of all ages confidence and enthusiasm that it is indeed possible to remake the world.
and we will.
Posted by: ekzept | Jun 16, 2007 8:09:11 PM
I've been thinking about this topic a great deal lately and lo and behold I wrote a post on it today and then saw this post.
What I think isn't brought to light in the cases of all these young entrepreneurs who are striking it big with their concepts and ideas is the team that's behind them.
Being that I am in the process of raising funding, one of the most important aspect, besides an innovatice and scalable idea, is the strength, abilities and knowledge of the management team.
How come we don't hear more about the people behind the Mark Zuckerberg, Rob Kalin, all the ycombinator??
Management skills, but more importantly leadership skills and ability to impart a vision and motivate a team to carry-out that vision seems pretty critical. Do those 20 years old "guys and gals" have those skills? Who is really bringing the idea and concept alive??
Posted by: Ann Bernard | Jun 16, 2007 8:35:02 PM
You wouldn't dare approach the gender question or the race question, but if you want to throw your money at young inexperienced nerds go right ahead.
Posted by: paul | Jun 16, 2007 8:42:36 PM
Hmmm...I'm not feeling old or uninventive. My sisters are 10 years younger than I am and I know FAR more about the internet and live MUCH more of my life online at 34 than they. I suspect that many over 30 have different financing needs, more professional contacts to draw upon for expertise and funding, different life needs, etc. and that may explain the demographics you see.
Posted by: edutech72 | Jun 16, 2007 9:24:06 PM
yeah, i generally agree with this. all you have to do is look at the consumer technology companies that go public and become billion dollar successes and see which were founded by people over 30 at founding and which by people under 30:
google, ebay, amazon, yahoo under 30
apple microsoft under 30
although I can think of a couple founded by people over 30: netflix comes to mind.
nonetheless, you are really gonna hear it from our fellow 40-50 something entrepreneurs!
Looking at the existing landscape you've got a few potential big hits that were started by people over 30, but the real monsters are all founded by people under 30. So there's an interesting question...what will be the next billion dollar consumer tech company founded by somebody over 30? you can think of a bunch of under 30 candidates - Facebook, Bebo, AdMob? (think those guys are under 30, but not sure!).
Posted by: Dick Costolo | Jun 16, 2007 10:17:42 PM
Ok I let Fred's first post on this slide. The Mid Life Entrepreneur Crisis
But he's back on the age issue again.
The Age Question (continued)Yes it is! That's why the very very few who can are so special! You should be seeking them out rather than insulting them with these discriminative posts."It is incredibly hard to think of new paradigms when you've grown up reading the newspaper every morning. When you turn to TV for your entertainment. When you read magazines on the train home from work."
Continuing to write posts like these is also a self fulfilling prophecy for you because you just completely push older entrepreneurs away. Clearly you have a bias. That's unfortunate for you.
Ok Facebook opened up their social platform. The new paradigm to me is where the Social Graph intersects with Social Media and the Attention Economy. It changes everything. It changes media. It changes marketing. It changes advertising. I get it and I'm 50. So what..... Truth be told I don't know a lot people of any age that really fully get this.
Who cares how the hell old you are! You either live in this new world or you don't. That's the only determinante. There are many young people that don't live online at all. Just like there are older people like myself that live in and on the web, the 2.0 social web, 24/7.
Let's stop the valueless gross age generalizations and built the new paradigm! Shall we?
Please stop insulting the outliers. You're smarter than that Fred.
Now go check out: Trakzor Myspace, Trakzor Facebook, FoodFight, Quick Search and Atten.tv. We have millions of users. 1.5m which were acquired on Facebook in the last 2 weeks.
We have a diversified experienced team (ages 23 - 50). Now that seems like the smarter strategy doesn't it? We're just getting started and there's a lot of paradigm shifting to come. Stay tuned!
Ironically, I was riding the BART to SFO on Friday. As I entered the BART they were handing out free Newspapers. I hadn't read a paper newspaper in the past, I don't know, 5 years or so. It was a very nostalgic experience. ;-)
Posted by: David Henderson | Jun 16, 2007 11:35:30 PM
The reasons why you see so many successful young entrepreneurs are very simple:
1. They don't know what does and doesn't work, so they're more likely to come up with a novel solution -- on the other hand, there's the problem of reinventing the relational database mentioned above. The latter group are invisible from a VC perspective.
2. Lots of free time. It's very easy for a college kid to write software from their dorm room and push it out to market. Again, those whose ideas never make it out of the dorm room are invisible.
3. No downside, huge upside. Young entrepreneurs don't bear the opportunity cost of leaving an established career, they can usually do their project on the side (see #2), and even if they don't strike it rich their project can still be a plus on their resume.
4. From a PR perspective, there's mileage in the "young whiz kid" story that you just can't get anywhere else -- yet in many of those cases there are plenty of experienced older people behind the scenes nevertheless. Even if they're founders or key players, they're often invisible because it's just not a sexy story -- doesn't mean they're less important.
It's not an "insult" to outliers to say that they're outliers -- there are simple statistical reasons why startups are generally started by youngsters, and most of them have little to do with this mystical intuitive understanding of the subtle workings of teh Intarweb.
If you're trying to tell me that my peers sending each other text messages in lol-kitteh are vanguards of a new zeitgeist, I've got a nice cold bucket of ice water here for you to dunk your head in.
Startups are subject to power-law dynamics: highly visible, often unpredictable successes emerging from many, many failed ventures. So the market is more amenable to the young and reckless, period.
But a statistical fact should have nothing at all to do with your due diligence while evaluating a single startup: if you're using age as a proxy for energy, prior commitments, creativity, that's just sloppy. If it's those attributes you're looking for, why not just talk about the personal qualities that make a good founder, rather than all the smoke 'n' mirrors about how "them youngsters just understand this internet thingy"? In hindsight, would you have made the same argument about other new mediums, like television, radio, or home video?
Your story might hold some water as a narrative, but evaluating individual companies on this basis is just naïve. One would expect more from a dedicated VC.
Posted by: Adam | Jun 17, 2007 12:57:47 AM
Don't forget BBS, we had chatrooms, multiplayer games, message boards and all that in the 1980's. I'm over 30 and online my whole life, since 300bps baby!
Posted by: Ferodynamics | Jun 17, 2007 7:05:47 AM
"We've only funded one of these net natives out of close to fifteen portfolio companies."
That is the critical quote from your post. We are no doubt experiencing a Cult of Youth, because geeky kids are the earliest of early adopters -- and why not, they have little to lose by trying new things. But what is the success rate of their inventions? As a cohort, how do they fare over time with a cohort more experienced in business?
Please follow up with a post addressing that.
Posted by: SpragueD | Jun 17, 2007 10:28:15 AM
Fun and provocative conversation ...
I like Adam's reasons, and I'd like to suggest another one for the list: Because it is easier to take advantage of young, often naive entrepreneurs.
Posted by: George Nimeh | Jun 17, 2007 12:29:52 PM
I've greatly enjoyed your posts on the "age problem" topic and the comments that have come in as a result.
As a 40-something potential future entrepreneur, I'm neither offended nor discouraged by your observations. It seems like you've offered them in the spirit of "here's what I'm seeing... it's up to you to draw your own conclusions and launch a great company, regardless of your age."
Nowhere in your posts have I sensed that as a VC you would discount the potential impact and investment return of startups founded by entrepreneurs who are older than 15-20.
For me the takeaway seems pretty straightforward: founders of promising startups are getting younger and younger because the center of gravity for internet usage is squarely within their demographic. Those of hoping to build successful web-based companies can't afford to ignore these realities, be they 18 or 48.
Posted by: Dean Richardson | Jun 17, 2007 1:32:27 PM
Aghhhhhhh. It's like you're paraphrasing what Curt Cobain said: don't trust anyone over thirty.
All of the paradigms I came up with "while reading the newspaper" can now be pursued online because I have the accumulated wisdom of experience, and more level-headedness.
True, the younger kids have the energy and time to work on the ideas all day and night, but there are over-thirties who are developing new paradigms and being successful.
I really wish I'd bookmarked that post I came across which listed some hot startups for 2007, several of which had creators well over thirty, some in their forties.
There's a giant market out there for over-thirties, over-forties, etc., and many will come around. My father is nearly 80 and he's trying to blog about health. There will be more like him, possibly with the help of someone younger and experienced, say 35-45 :)
Posted by: raj | Jun 17, 2007 1:46:43 PM
If it is true that being under 30 is an advantage for a start-up, then the same logic should apply to VCs making the funding decisions. VCs should be run out of basements, garages and dorm rooms by 20 somethings. At the very least, VCs should have 20 something advisors beyond just their kids.
How about an experiment in which you turn the tables. You hire a geographically distributed team of 20 somethings, give them a few $M and let them invest it in 10 start-ups with you being the advisor rather than the other way around. I'm not kidding. Would that be a more successful model? I wonder what the result would be. BTW, I'm 39 and would not qualify (plus I'm busy starting up my own gig).
Allan
http://isfanstartup.blogspot.com
Posted by: allan isfan | Jun 18, 2007 12:09:05 AM
Age?? You bunch of wet behind the ears whipper snappers. My point is this ... uh, I forget my point. Time to get to the bathroom, anyway, and it takes me a damn hour to get there.
Posted by: thacker | Jun 18, 2007 3:50:30 PM
The net facilitates small start ups which can quickly become huge. This is a great culture, but it is inevitable that it favours a younger age group.
But the real sad question no-one is asking is how long does this last? From Micro to Google & FaceBook & all, the big successes will all become the new corporates, huge multi billion conglomerates run by the older staid executives that they began as the antithesis to.
And as these companies get richer fast, so they buy up more & more net cos. thus establishing a dominating presence. This leaves the net, which originally mushroomed as a playground for daring, young & unwealthy entrepreneurs, as the province of what will then become the new version of the old bureaucracy.
So we maybe go full circle - new culture & opps = young start-ups, successful young start-ups = staid mature public companies,
& a new culture eventually - whenever - emerges & it all starts off again.
Hopefully it won't all take too long.
Posted by: Maggy | Jun 19, 2007 4:36:56 PM
Well - that puts me in the crapper. Seriously - is there no room for those with experience working with the younger generation? I believe there's bags of opportunity. Or put another way - what has Zuckerberg proven that would allow him to command the same fee as say - Jack Welch?
Posted by: Dennis Howlett | Jun 21, 2007 5:52:32 AM
How many dotcoms failed because "youthful" entrepreneurs didn't have the patience, experience,and stick-to-it-ofness to make them successful? The youngsters may be more prolific, but it's the older generation who are more successful. The single biggest mistake Americans make is devaluing their elders. Imagine how much more evolved we'd be as a nation if we actually harvested their experience and knowledge.
I don't see much of value coming from the younger generation -- it's all bells and whistles with no content; very little of it is making our world a better place. Youngsters want everything overnight and with the least amount of work possible; to hell with tomorrow. They have zero ability to plan for the future nor do they understand the word "sacrifice".
And contrary to youthful opinion, my 76 year old mother enjoys her computer very much. Better start "inventing" for this crowd, kiddies, because they'll make up a good 30% of the population in just a few years.
Posted by: Cranky Chick | Jun 23, 2007 1:58:59 PM
I generally agree with the idea that those of us over 30 are what has been described as "digital immigrants". We come from the analog world and that is an inhibiting factor.
On the other hand, what I see in the world of social networking is a great deal of copycatting. How many more photo sharing sites are necessary? How many really give the user something new? In other words, not all young entrepreneurs are especially innovative or original. Social networking is like any new industry. Just as in the automotive industry at the turn of the century, there were many many companies and after a while there was huge consolidation. That is what will happen in social networking and probably sooner than anyone thinks.
What can an older person bring to the table? Well experience, especially experience in business. It is not too surprizing that the young innovators have frequently been unable to monetize their innovations.
The other thing that is important, if intangible is deep knowledge, a deep immersion in culture and history that can only come with time and reflection. The young are callow by their very nature.
The ideal combination for a new venture? A mix of ages and levels of experience. But above all an attitude of openness to innovative ideas and perspectives. Innovation and creativity is not a monopoly of the young-if it were we would not be seeing the copycatting.
As a 64 year old, I do not feel that my days of creativity are over. Far from it. In am in the process of developing an entirely new approach to social networking based on my experience and that deep immersion in culture and history that I mentioned before.
Stephen
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 8, 2007 11:11:54 AM
Kids make better copy and a standard template story that fits well with the business magazine and CNBC hype machine (ironic, isn't it, to be so reliant on these to build valuation hype)? How many times will we see a re-tread of the homoerotic "twin male uberkid" story coming out of the Valley? It was old when Woz and Jobs did it, then fast-forward with Yang/Filo Spencer/Kraus, Brin/Page and most recently Hurley/Chen (with Karim written out as an inconvenient third wheel disrupting the dyadic symmetry of the story). People have loves twin stories for millenia, and in the absence of actual twins, will settle for ersatz twins, the younger the better (but no too young, because that would convert the eroticism into ephebophilia).
Posted by: meehawl | Jul 8, 2007 11:43:02 AM
Young entrepreneurs usually come up with something new simply because they have plenty of time to think about it, and doesn't have the worries as a married person has. However, youths tend to rush everything and want everything almost immediately, which is usually the cause of their failure. On the contrary, older entrepreneurs think carefully and slowly on new ideas, and have the patience to wait for it to bloom fully.
Posted by: Bootstrap | Jul 12, 2007 2:38:26 PM
