I've been thinking about online-to-offline a bit recently while watching the rise of Grouper amongst my peers (as well as Tinder to a lesser extent). Seems like there may be some places where the offline-to-online focus of disruption could itself be disrupted by encouraging more offline interaction. Anyway, interesting to think about in the age of software eating the world.
Maybe it's not which one is beter over another. Who is beter at sales, marketing and networking. Sometimes soft skills are as or more important then your technical superiority?
Not to mention the finance chops required to make money, manage physical inventory (which most 'startups' don't really have to worry about), buy/hedge commodities and currencies, etc...
Most of the SV 'startups' I read about are just glorified websites, maybe with a mobile app as well. There are plenty of real, physical problems which can't simply be solved with a website. That's not to say there isn't opportunity for disruption and improvement, but your typical 'startup' is simply in the wrong domain.
> In a comment on HN, PG noted that the massive fortunes of the future will be made by "startups in industries that didn’t previously have them."
This requires a myopic definition of the word "startup." I have yet to encounter any industry in which there are no new businesses being formed. Are these new businesses all started by Silicon Valley types, and do they look like Silicon Valley startups? Of course not, but that doesn't make them any less a "startup."
> Many if not most industries can be improved with an injection of technology and the introduction of the startup ethos (disruption, growth, efficiency, data, etc.).
This statement seems to imply that most industries are behind the curve technologically, and that the players in these industries aren't focused on growth, efficiency and the use of data.
From agriculture to shipping to insurance, it's hard to find major industries that are not using data and cutting-edge technology to create efficiencies and drive growth. In many if not most cases, you will find that they have been solving incredibly complex problems and building sophisticated solutions for longer than many Silicon Valley "startup" employees have been alive.
> Most of the economy is still untouched by the methods used by Silicon Valley’s engineering-first companies.
What "methods" are these? And what exactly is an "engineering-first" company? Is a company primarily differentiated by having a prettier website, which ironically seems to make up a good number of the startups the author points to, an "engineering-first" company? If so, why? And why does this matter?
I wonder how the author would describe companies like Exxon, Maersk and GE...
The assumption from the author and pg, and many others, myself included, is that software excellence is something in the DNA of SV startup culture, and is going to deliver outsized, orders of magnitude advantages over companies that do not have software in their DNA.
my favourite analogy is at some point after Gutenberg and 1451, there were companies who had hired almost entirely these new literate citizens, and companies who had hired maybe a few to work in the "ink department".
Those with literacy in their DNA had outsized advantages. It often came up against Royal monopolies and state interests, which may be one reason the Industrial revolution took a while to arrive.
However it is worth noting that the first wave of electrification of factories in the late 1890s did not see productivity rise much till the 20's - a generation had to retire before factories were reorganised away from steam engine layouts. A similar effect seems to be happening here - the first generation of managers with computers in workplace is retiring, leaving behind the tired Microsoft metaphors for Desktops and filing cabinets. And it is being replaced with ... well we don't know yet, but I have not had a copy of word or PowerPoint or excel for years. And I have not had OpenOffice either, and only use google docs for CVs.
Software will deliver outsized advantages for companies with it in their DNA for at least a generation.
How many startups do you really believe are more technically sophisticated than, say, Chevron, Hapag-Lloyd, Cargill, ADP or Goldman Sachs?
It's easy for a couple of 20-somethings sipping lattes at The Creamery to imagine that industries like agriculture and trucking are filled with bumpkins who don't "have software in their DNA", but that doesn't mean this is reality.
If you remove yourself from the Bay Area bubble, it's quite difficult to find industries that are not already using data and technology in very sophisticated ways.
> ...software excellence is something in the DNA of SV startup culture...
What is "software excellence"?
Look at the page source for the websites of the companies the author has invested in: most of them exhibit more than one easily-avoided front-end worst practice.
Obviously, this doesn't mean that these services are of no value, but it's kind of silly to throw around phrases like "software excellence" and "engineering-first" when the type of companies that are supposed to be exhibiting these things apparently can't find the time to push clean, efficient front-end code to production.
I like the specific mention of Agri-business. I'll admit to being pretty blind to it until a close friend went to one that is doing amazing things and producing very sophisticated devices. They're currently switching out the old for the new similar to what you were replying to. They have the "startup" mindset but it seems they are already entrenched with money to burn, looks like a good position to be in.
And I drove by the place all the time, never realizing it was on the cutting edge of one of the world's biggest business sectors.
I've done three agriculture software startups. I do not believe that the average city dweller has any idea. At the last InfoAg conference there was a number of UAV (drone) vendors for the first time.
I am sure those companies are technically sophisticated. I don't think I said that all existing companies are lacking software excellence, or that all startups have it (!).
I think that like artillery in warfare software will give an unfair advantage to whichever side uses it, and there are plenty of companies out there who do not have artillery.
Yes there are a lot of fine well run world leading companies out there - I expect they will do well. There are also a lot of badly run companies who really really do not get even the basics.
I agree there are many companies that utilize software and technology very well. But the names you mention are all large firms, my personal experience is that it is smaller firms that could get a boost from technology. I think one benefit if the SAAS model is that large issues (like brand mgmt/social media) can be handled in companies that couldnt dream of having a PR dept or even someone on retainer. This also works for stuff like salesforce, accounting/payrol, the list goes on.
If I had an investment portfolio like they describe in the link, I would be looking for services on or offline that a pakage deals to help integrate business process and technology
11 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 36.8 ms ] threadMost of the SV 'startups' I read about are just glorified websites, maybe with a mobile app as well. There are plenty of real, physical problems which can't simply be solved with a website. That's not to say there isn't opportunity for disruption and improvement, but your typical 'startup' is simply in the wrong domain.
This requires a myopic definition of the word "startup." I have yet to encounter any industry in which there are no new businesses being formed. Are these new businesses all started by Silicon Valley types, and do they look like Silicon Valley startups? Of course not, but that doesn't make them any less a "startup."
> Many if not most industries can be improved with an injection of technology and the introduction of the startup ethos (disruption, growth, efficiency, data, etc.).
This statement seems to imply that most industries are behind the curve technologically, and that the players in these industries aren't focused on growth, efficiency and the use of data.
From agriculture to shipping to insurance, it's hard to find major industries that are not using data and cutting-edge technology to create efficiencies and drive growth. In many if not most cases, you will find that they have been solving incredibly complex problems and building sophisticated solutions for longer than many Silicon Valley "startup" employees have been alive.
> Most of the economy is still untouched by the methods used by Silicon Valley’s engineering-first companies.
What "methods" are these? And what exactly is an "engineering-first" company? Is a company primarily differentiated by having a prettier website, which ironically seems to make up a good number of the startups the author points to, an "engineering-first" company? If so, why? And why does this matter?
I wonder how the author would describe companies like Exxon, Maersk and GE...
my favourite analogy is at some point after Gutenberg and 1451, there were companies who had hired almost entirely these new literate citizens, and companies who had hired maybe a few to work in the "ink department".
Those with literacy in their DNA had outsized advantages. It often came up against Royal monopolies and state interests, which may be one reason the Industrial revolution took a while to arrive.
However it is worth noting that the first wave of electrification of factories in the late 1890s did not see productivity rise much till the 20's - a generation had to retire before factories were reorganised away from steam engine layouts. A similar effect seems to be happening here - the first generation of managers with computers in workplace is retiring, leaving behind the tired Microsoft metaphors for Desktops and filing cabinets. And it is being replaced with ... well we don't know yet, but I have not had a copy of word or PowerPoint or excel for years. And I have not had OpenOffice either, and only use google docs for CVs.
Software will deliver outsized advantages for companies with it in their DNA for at least a generation.
It's easy for a couple of 20-somethings sipping lattes at The Creamery to imagine that industries like agriculture and trucking are filled with bumpkins who don't "have software in their DNA", but that doesn't mean this is reality.
If you remove yourself from the Bay Area bubble, it's quite difficult to find industries that are not already using data and technology in very sophisticated ways.
> ...software excellence is something in the DNA of SV startup culture...
What is "software excellence"?
Look at the page source for the websites of the companies the author has invested in: most of them exhibit more than one easily-avoided front-end worst practice.
Obviously, this doesn't mean that these services are of no value, but it's kind of silly to throw around phrases like "software excellence" and "engineering-first" when the type of companies that are supposed to be exhibiting these things apparently can't find the time to push clean, efficient front-end code to production.
And I drove by the place all the time, never realizing it was on the cutting edge of one of the world's biggest business sectors.
This nationally known futurist gushes about how technical ag has become: http://www.precisionag.com/video/c:0/1688/
If you're expecting to find Mr. Haney from Green Acres fame you're in for a rude shock.
I think that like artillery in warfare software will give an unfair advantage to whichever side uses it, and there are plenty of companies out there who do not have artillery.
Yes there are a lot of fine well run world leading companies out there - I expect they will do well. There are also a lot of badly run companies who really really do not get even the basics.
Schumpter will be calling is all I am saying.
If I had an investment portfolio like they describe in the link, I would be looking for services on or offline that a pakage deals to help integrate business process and technology