I did interviews with most of the TechCrunch50 experts backstage and there was a common gripe about the companies launching there: Not enough passion, not enough swinging for the fences, not enough trying to change the world. There were too many people building safe businesses, too many companies just trying to make existing things slightly better, and too many people wanting to be the next Mint.com, not the next Google. Nothing against Mint, but Silicon Valley wasn’t built on $170 million exits.
Web visionaries like Reid Hoffman and Sean Parker struggled to come up with positive feedback on stage. Robert “I-get-excited-by-nearly-any-start-up” Scoble was so bored he was playing Hangman via Twitter with Paul Carr. Marc Andreessen praised Udorse—a company that he joked would make the world a worse place if it succeeded—because at least it was a new idea. Tim O’Reilly said he didn’t care whether Cocodot, one of the companies he judged, succeeded or failed because it was so meaningless in the world. And Tony Hsieh just said it blatantly: “I didn’t see anything that was trying to change the world.”
One big exception was CitySourced—a company that excited Kevin Rose precisely because it was trying to build something that doesn’t really exist today and would make a huge difference in people’s lives. It was the most excited I saw an expert about anything over the two-day event.
I don’t say this to knock the conference or the selections we made. But the truth is I heard it too consistently backstage to ignore it. To be fair, we’re at that point in the start-up cycle where this is to be expected. Web 2.0 start-ups that are going to break out mostly have and others are running out of time and money. With fatigue setting in around the Valley, most new companies are looking to play it safe. We saw the exact same thing in 2001-2002. Then and now, press outlets compliment this type of thing as “sensibility” or being smart. Jeering ledes get written with told-you-so lines like “Remember profits, Silicon Valley?”
Those people just don’t understand the Valley and what makes great start-ups great. They’re the same people who write about Facebook and Twitter once the companies have raised loads of money and gotten huge audiences. The people who extol the virtues of “sensibility” are never the people at the core of the next great companies. Whether press or VCs, they’ll be late to the next wave, just like they were too late to this one. But the experts at our conference do get it and that’s why they left mostly un-wowed.
Here’s why this matters: Start-ups by definition don’t have the experience, market position, funding or resources to tackle obvious market opportunities. If what they’re trying to do makes clear business sense, a bigger, better-positioned company would do it. A start-up’s only edge is that it’s not built into legacy businesses and preconceived notions and can do something, well, crazy.
There are entrepreneurs somewhere building the next big companies. But it’s probably just a wonky side-project that no one—not even the entrepreneur himself—realizes is the next big thing. That’s who we need to drag on stage next year.
Ten years from now I don’t want to look back on TechCrunch50 and see that our winners had a string of $100 million exits. For a conference that seeks to ferret out the most exciting startups in the world, that’s failure. I want to see huge audacious failures and huge gaudy wins. I worry if we play it too safe as a conference we’ll lose the attention of the Andreessens, the Hsiehs, the Tim O’Reillys and the Reid Hoffmans and eventually, the audience that stayed glued to their uncomfortable seats even in the event’s final hours hoping to see something that could change their lives.
Wow — great post.
Part of it was the hype around the event — with Jason and Mike hyping the event people expected change the world businesses.
Yet — even with expectations aside we are living in a world of incrementalism.
That is right guys. Keep trashing the event and startups. After all this is going to be the last year for tc50. So keep the trashing. A great loss for the industry and startups
Could it simply be that Techcrunch needs to modify the way they select companies to demo? Either that or we are all out of innovation.
I’d agree however this is hypocritical
“Start-ups by definition don’t have the experience, market position, funding or resources to tackle obvious market opportunities.”
Then why have you included so many start-ups with >$2-3-4-5 million in funding for Techcrunch50. I really thought it would be the promotion of companies with less than $500K of funding -
Not companies that have $3-4-5 million in funding and whose entire point at being at the conference is for the media exposure. The investors just sat there and went “oh ok you already have funding then”
Seems pointless to me
Stipulating a launch as one of the selection criteria probably adversely affects quality.
Chicken-and-egg problem…
If you have an idea that will change the world, it is probably something new – which means that most people won’t understand it when they first see it…and therefore the idea will not get picked up by either investors or the press.
However, most ideas that seems interesting to investors and journalists aren’t that world-changing to begin with.
And then you have “the little guys” who tries to change the world just a tiny, little bit – one step at a time. We are not “interesting enough” for journalists, so people will not learn about us from the media, but rather through word-of-mouth…and suddenly a world-changing idea “arises from nowhere” when the media finally discovers us
In general I enjoy Techcrunch, I just think they should give smaller guys more of a chance. Feels like you have to have a big name or funding to get coverage. Probably just jealousy on my part.
So true! If you are truly new and innovative, everyone from angels and VC to the press harp on you for not hitting one of the big trends they are watching. Sadly, there is so much quantity there is little quality. To understand and vet new ideas, you need to put in time to understand what a start up is doing and why it matters. Most investors and most of the press don’t dedicate the time to this effort, thus we see more of a recycling of the things they know and are familiar with. Sad.
Umm Tech Crunch, I hate to point it out, but you guys are the ones that picked the lame duck companies to present. Take some risks. Grow some balls. I mean seriously – Penn and Teller?
Just because someone is famous or a serial entrepreneur doesn’t mean they’re going to change the world. In fact, most of the people who do change the world with products are first time (and one time) entrepreneurs. Gates, Zuckerberg, Page & Brin, Yang, etc etc. I have a hard time believing that out of 1000 applicants none were swinging for the fences.
i agree, who decides or in other words theres no prophecy as to which start-up can change the world and which will go out.
A start-up who is trying to change a step-by-step may later on change its business model and become a hit which may not always be true for 100% innovative start-ups.
Would love to see some recognition of those who have great promise but maybe bootstrapped themselves into position to have a successful company…
I want to see you showcase the guy from Spiderbreath, Montana–who mortgaged his house– standing next to the group who knews a VC with deep pockets in the Valley…
Two suggestions.
1. Take more risk in choosing the next year’s startups.
2. have less startups present.
Good one though! I learnt a lot about presentations.
Exactly .. I agree … Part of it was the hype around the event ..
but nice post …Sarah .
Best,
Daina
Memo to Tech Startup Bloggers/Self Professed Journalists/Talent scouts and Newshounds: your supposed to be spotting and writing about the next world game changers. your ultimate article or conference is to be the first to bring your audience the next world game changer. its not all your fault……..world changing startup Innovation is virtually impossible to find and in reality is just a myth for most.
Great post.
+1; The emperor has no clothes and Ms. Lacy has called it. Even the grand poohbah mint was lipstick on a pig, Yodlee with a UI. And the fools at Intuit will find that out soon enough.
Thank you thank you thank you thank you for saying this.
List of 12 concepts/sectors that entrepreneurs could focus on in regards to changing the world. http://jasonlba...y-next-startup/
PS- Yeah yeah, I hate to be “that guy” who comments on TechCrunch with a link to something of his own. Moreso, I hope some entrepreneurs on the edge about doing one of the ideas/creating any type of company read it and get inspired.
Don’t worry about being “that guy.” Your list of ideas is thought-provoking and definitely complements this article.
I’m a Silicon Valley outsider so perhaps I’m dead wrong on this but to an outsider golden parachutes and platinum exits (flipping) frequently looks like the *main* activity in Northern California. It’s like cheap movies. They’re a far safe bet then trying to create something original. Look at Y Combinator. It’s not explicit but it’s pretty apparent they are looking for young 20 somethings who are building the next Yahoo, and there are plenty of other VCs with those silicon colored glasses around. The problem seems to be the same problem that any “hit” culture (songs, startups, etc.) ends up with. Nobody really knows what a “hit” is so they go for offerings that look like what has already succeeded which is a mindset inherently hostile to a truly unique or innovative idea. My two cents (but I’m looking to wait a few months and get four cents).
well put. TC50 is not reflective of NorCal by any means. and the music stops when people get tired of updating their Facebook profiles or tweeting their bowel movements.
Companies that pull in real dollars call the shots here. Apple, Applied Materials, Cisco, Intel, Google, Oracle, Yahoo….
People are already getting tired of Facebook and Twitter.
Wow Sarah…you must be really secure in your job. I loved your honesty.
I think part of the issue is that those of us who are building real “white space” companies on thin funding (i.e. not the $4-5M plus VC stage) just don’t have the resources to present at these conferences. Of course we should, but we are tending the homefires.
@Robert Oschler So true. I’ve worked in large consumer “hits driven” industries (toys, licensed products, sporting goods, footwear) and repeats and re-do’s are rarely the runaway successes. I have sometimes had to be that person in the corner defending the idea no one can see…it’s a hard road but so rewarding when it works.
Sarah,
If Twitter, Facebook or even Linkedin were to present during the early days, I am sure you would have said the same thing. Remember Google was the 14th search engine to come out. I am sure a lot of VC’s and so called smart CEO’s like Reid Hoffman (who btw is running a Web 1.0 site, Linkedin ), would have laughed at Google in the early days as well and would have said, “why would i need another one of these”. No one was “WOW”ed by Google when they came out.
So instead of being cynical, try to see how YOU can take all these startup somewhere and not bring them down. Startups have to start somewhere.
To be fair, Google *solved* relevancy – VERY huge and world changing.
James you are saying that now. At that time, people were focused on Yahoo, Altavista, Webcrawler and etc. Even VC’s laughed at Google. So whole Google world changing only came a year and a half after they founded the company.
I agree with Mike D. I remember when Google did their IPO and I said to myself, “wow, what possibly could they do with that money, they are just a search engine”.
As it is that so many VCs try to “find” the next Google, who can they do that when they missed it the first time.
William,
Google’s IPO should hardly have been surprising in any way to anyone. In 2003 they had nearly $1B in REVENUE. When they went public, they had projections to earn well over $1B. That was exceptional for an Internet company of any kind- search or otherwise.
uh, but they did get funding from VCs didn’t they?
I was wowed from day 1 by google. Only se that you didn’t need to look further than the 1st 5 results to find what u were looking for, for the most part
I was wowed by the technology, but not the business. Back then there was no PPC, and when it finally came around it wasn’t Google that invented it. (Credit Pud and Overture for that.)
The conventional wisdom back then (followed by Yahoo) is that a search engine’s only hope is to become a media company, or be a (lower-valuation) technology provider like Inktomi. Remember the failed Lycos-USA Networks deal?
Well put.
+1
I was also wow-ed google search result back in 1999, switched from yahoo to google since then.
I cross check the search result among google, yahoo and MSN (now bing) periodically to make sure google is still providing most relevant result. I am always ready to wow-ed and switch if better one come out.
Amen.
sarah, you have know idea how desperately the british establishment needs to read that article.
in your world travels, if you ever meet one of our MPs, i would be most obliged if you gave them a rocket based on this article.
i really hope america knows how fortunate it is to have a place like the valley and i really hope your do gooders, dont screw it up.
Sarah, I mostly agree. I do think there were a few startups that can both make a difference and be huge. Of course, we feel that is true of BreakThrough and telemedicine. Others include:
-Affective Interfaces: not sure it can be a billion-dollar company but I agree with Tim O’Reilly that the basic research and technology is pushing the human-computer interface field forward.
-RedBeacon: they will face major distribution challenges but if they can get traction, it will be a massive company that helps thousands of quality small businesses that are currently not good at marketing themselves.
-Healthywage: incentives for health do seem to work and there isn’t a lot of technology to help employers with this. I don’t know if they have the right plan yet but health care is such a gigantic and important market that if you make a few basis points difference, either in cost, access, or quality, the financial and personal gains are huge. It’s hard to even put a price on the latter.
Overall, I am wary of assigning a dollar tag as you suggest to a startup’s importance. We know VC economics but decimal points alone do not change the world; consider any successful affiliate marketing, domaining, or porn company. There are other bottom lines that matter.
The market also needs some web start ups that are businesses. Sites like Mint.com are useful. And it’s good to see companies that can succeed financially while providing a great web product.
May be we need more Zappos around. A company that changed a large part of e-commerce & organizational management while still being a stable and profitable company.
Sure, Twitter & Facebook are the kinds of start ups you want to see, but there probably isn’t going to be 50 of them. Try making it the TechCrunch 5 if you are just looking for the crazy ideas.
hmm, i think back to early days of Facebook and Twitter before they evolved. would judges have gotten excited about a small closed network for college students only by a kid or a micro-blog that was originally made to let people know they were eating a burrito
…i wonder how exciting they would have sounded if they launched at TC50 prior to having the community help shape them to what they are today.
and a decade ago, if you told me a startup that was called “shoes” in Spanish was going to be a cult favorite among online shoppers and sold to Amazon for a crazy amount of money, would any of those judges have called it at its startup phase? i’m a fan of Tony’s philosophy, but his presentation style wouldn’t have exactly had Scoble falling off his seat with excitement either right? just sayin…
What turned me onto Zappos was visiting the company and seeing the culture. That’s when I knew that it was special. That’s why I like to visit companies and sit with them for a while. I get a lot more out of that then a speech on a stage although on stage I can see if someone is doing something interesting or has a new approach that will catch people’s interest.
I think that could be part of the problem mentioned above – that since T50 is pre-launch most businesses have not built this culture or even figured out their business plan. They have one one they wrote in their presentation deck, but as we know once something actually hits the market the model almost always changes many times.
The idea to agile – launch, do it quickly, revised and re-launch…again quickly. So while many of these businesses right out of the gate may be lacking “culture” or a “world changing idea” it may simply be due to the fact that they are trying to finish the home page design and functionality. Once that hurdle is crossed then one can see adjacencies, partners and ways to leverage this new technology to truly be a game changer.
Grand failures and insane success takes insane funding. Tell the VCs to start writing checks like it’s going out of style like they did back in 99′ and 04′ and I guarantee the next TechCrunch50 will start seeing more world changing start ups.
The biggest stuff tends to not have an obvious business model like Facebook and Twitter didn’t. Yet no one seems keen on startups without business models anymore.
that’s rubish…if you think a VC is going to invest millions into a project that has no business model, then every joe blow with an “idea” and airy predictions can get funded.
and what exactly is the twitter business model?
To be fair, Google *solved* relevancy – VERY huge and world changing.
AMEN!!
You forgot that we saw just saw the last TechCrunch 50 conference
God I hope so.
Sarah, Its no fun when we agree.
The truth is that uncertainty in the capital markets often breed safety in the startup world. Its not because the startups themselves dont want to swing for the fences, but its probably because everyone has advised them to keep it super simple and just make it until everything starts to bounce back.
Its also a bit of the “survivor mentality” that existed after the web 1.0 bust. People have the tendency to keep success or grandiose plans, quiet so that they will avoid the potential stinging reality of public failure.
Or, perhaps the real world changers are in Boulder, CO, keeping their heads down and working hard to bust ass.
And, yes, that sound you hear is me beating a dead horse…
Give these guys awhile. I think anyclip and citysourced will be interesting…
Words of wisdom from @micah are always worth a read.
Thanks for mentioning AnyClip.com I believe that you are right!
well put.
Great Post, Sarah. The conference was nowhere near what I expected
What do you mean with *safe business*!?. There’s no such thing.
What I saw in the TC50 is a group of extremely well prepared entrepreneurs that made things look easy but still are facing extremely complex challenges.
Facebook and Google weren’t different these guys when they started.
Disagree in so many levels.
BTW, how many startups have you come up with? Oh how about a world changing one.
That is right. None.
Let’s be happy that we have at least events like this to encourage startups.
I wonder, how did exactly Tony Hsieh change the world himself with Zappos?
Dicatators the world over can stock their closets with shoes in ease from Zappos?
I think you’re seeing exactly what you asked for. Startups don’t exist for the entertainment value of a bunch of jaded judges. They exist to get funding and accomplish something. And who among you is going to step up and place your bets on the startup swinging for the fences rather than playing it safe with your LP’s money and betting on the ones with prototypes and a revenue stream. Can’t have it both ways.
Sarah, I attended TechCrunch50 and watched every single stage demo. Unfortunately your post is ENTIRELY CORRECT.
Nobody tried to swing for the fences and I only wanted additional information on two of them for investment due diligence. Also, the start-ups being advised not to use part of their time to focus on business plan, competition and gaining traction was huge mistake.
well-stated.
One more thought, is there a possibility that MA and JC are just too busy running their companies to adequately review >1000 applications and narrow down to the 50 that we saw?
I cant help but wonder if there were more interesting business ideas that ended up in the garabage can.
JD… could you please trash the demo pit companies a little as well? it would be unfair for the 50 to get all the positive AND all the negative talk. Thx.
JD, also please do not forget to list some successful startup that you founded. It is always fun to sit back and point at someone else’s failures.
Mike D please stop being a comment pussy.
bravo
Sarah, great post (enjoyed your book too)! I’m glad that this idea is growing stronger. Tim O’Reilly started it several months ago. I thought your interview w/him was interesting. He talked about how he was interested in companies that don’t necessarily have the best business model, but do have real potential for changing the world. Paul Graham has also alluded to it. I don’t have the link, but his presentation on non-profit startups at startup school was very much in this vein. Worth checking out as it is one of the most lucid, practical descriptions of what you are articulating.
We, at http://www.nixty.com, are trying to change the world. Our BHAG is to be the educational operating system of the Web (to use Fred Wilson’s idea). You search, you use Google. You shop, you use Amazon. You learn, you use NIXTY. We’ve got a nice overview video up that communciates what we will accomplish.
We plan to open up our beta by the end of the year. If you are interested in disrupting education and changing the world, then please sign up. We’d love to have you join us in our mission of: empowering education for everyone!
aren’t there enough people disrupting education already?
wow why used mint as an example when they had a great exit smh
Much has been written about this, and I think a common theme is that it takes a lot of money to change the world. Can a start-up compete with Intel, Apple, GE, or IBM in developing new technologies? It’s just too expensive for a typical VC to make that bet. Look at the amount of money being thrown at Tesla? That’s a major bet, and they are competing against Toyota and Nissan. Who will win that battle?
I wish more companies came out with life changing technologies, we could use them. But is it fair to say that developing life changing technologies today is too hard and expensive for a start-up to take on? It’s a sad answer but it may be true.
Amen. Make sure you CC: conference organizers on the memo. We get what we ask for and reward.
Wow that is a surprisingly straightforward and blunt article. Its refreshing to read something so honest like that especially about your own event. Makes me remember why i read articles on this site instead of the competition whenever i have a choice.
I think a lot of your dis-heartened feelings come from over exposure. you live in the epicenter of most of the digital evolution in the world. step outside for second, look in and you will see you are surrounded by some pretty mind blowing people and concepts.
Don’t encourage her, she is already too self absorbed.
Ah thank you for this post!! I couldn’t agree more. I wasnt excited about any of the companies nor did I think any of them had the chance to change the world.
I felt the same watching, impressive companies but nothing seemed to “break the mould”, they just seemed to be generic money making companies.
This is by no means limited to this industry. Unfortunately, this is prevalent throughout society today.
Look, for example, at scientific and medical research and big-pharmaceutical companies. There are relatively few ground-breaking research studies being conducted because the financial incentive is to incrementally improve on existing studies and not to take risks, because people(NIH, the government, private companies) do not pay for risk taking. The incentives are all wrong.
“Ten years from now I don’t want to look back on TechCrunch50 and see that our winners had a string of $100 million exits. For a conference that seeks to ferret out the most exciting startups in the world, that’s failure.”
I notice that from all of the seed-stage incubator programs, there’s a lot of pressure to create something “cool and useful” rather than figure out how to make the next big thing. It all comes down to mentality, and even the Google guys had this problem. They looked for a quick exit in the early Google days, and they’re only a big monolithic company because they didn’t have the option of selling out early.
Entrepreneurs in silicon valley seem rather risk-averse in my opinion. They want to be safe, yet they want the social tag of being an “ambitious entrepreneur.”
(I believe) I’ve come up with the next huge thing. Here’s a few reasons why I did not consider presenting at this conference.
- The conference is held in USA. I am elsewhere and lack sufficient funds to justify this trip.
- Unashamedly, I am not in with the social IT in crowd.
- It is set up as a competition. This may make more sense for competitive enterprises than for an emerging standard. (If it had been an option, would 1990’s Tim Berners Lee have presented his WWW at TC50? )
Admittedly, my system is too immature to present at TC50. And my reasons may be just personal and/or specific to the dynamics of the system. Nevertheless I feel they resonate to the tune that Sarah is humming. The clearest signal is not necessarily the loudest.
There were only a couple of judges at the conference who could qualify as “experts”. The rest? A bunch of people who got lucky and think the only reason a company would succeed is if it went on stage with some former google engineers as founders.
what a joke.
what are you talking about? Chamilionaire is a total expert.
there should be a TC50 for social entrepreneurs using tech to solve big real issues. i’d love to see a TC50 type conference for how to solve the world’s problem with clean drinking water. helping farmers get their food to table faster. helping local businesses sell globally. helping poor kids have access to an education.
there really isn’t one right now. TED often features folks who are already successful and established. annual (yawn) conventions on non-profit world don’t change much because nothing new and exciting is injected.
you want change the world business models. do a TC50 that highlights social entrepreneurs. don’t expect young startup guys from the tech world to do that with a programming background or whatever.
Even better, how about a YCombinator for social entrepreneurs?
Nobody is funding such companies, remember?
There’s not enough money, and VCs and Angel investors WOULD NEVER invest in too big of an idea that takes a lot of $$$ and time to build.
The only people that stand such a chance are proven, 2nd timer multimillionaire entrepreneurs.
Anyone else SHOULD FOCUS ON MAKING THEIR BUSINESS TO BREAK-EVEN. ALL of the venture capitalist I heard talking in events for the past 6 months said “get to break-even as soon as possible” with few dollars. That means small ideas.
See Paul Graham and his “Ramen Profitable” concept, or Onset Venture’s Susan Mason in a recent SVASE event.
It will be a dreadful mistake on behalf of 1st time entrepreneurs to aim for the stars and present a plan that takes Series C+ to get profitable. Not happening.
I would urge people who start companies to focus on small ideas that get can break-even as soon as possible – that is what’s getting funded this days, nobody will take the type of risk Sarah Lacy is trying to convince you to take (its easy to talk, writing a check for such ideas is totally different story).
Maybe the problem lies in the fact that websites like TC seem to only give publicity to companies that build off of existing services like Facebook and Twitter. TC is extremely guilty of ignoring exciting start ups in an effort to garner cheap page views and pathetic ad money. In addition, I doubt any serious start up would need to show at TC50. The entire conference is for lame web apps that nobody will use except Scoble.
A bug-ridden TC50 is better than no TC50. There are no objective algorithms to judge quality of participants/startups. It will always be +/- 50.
No matter what the bottom line is anything valuable will be picked up from the street. It may take some time, but it will. Don’t believe me, try it with a dollar bill.
I agree! Our startup made it to the TC50 interview stage, but (obviously) not the conference itself. I realise I’m somewhat biased (ahem) but… really, our product is so much more exciting than the companies that got in. I mean, this year’s game-changer is… an incremental improvement to finding plumbers?!!?
Lame comment. Nobody’s bias, and frankly your product isn’t exciting at all – a new commenting sorting system isn’t all that innovative, its a tool, and not a business.
You are disrespectful for a winner of a tough competition and who made an awesome product, which is the best prediction of all things that you’ll fail, or should fail.
Making many-to-many discussions possible isn’t innovative or exciting??
Anyways, I agree that RedBeacon deserve respect for making a convincing product and a sensible business. For me, it’s just not game-changing enough to be ‘awesome’, but that doesn’t mean I don’t expect them to be enormously successful.
how can you tell if a product is innovative if you haven’t seen it? you can’t judge a product just after finding out what problem they are solving.
If a few years ago I told you my start-up is all about posting status updates of no longer that 140 characters it would be lame too… right…?
What exactly have you built Sarah?
Sarah
You been reading my personal TC50 notes?
Keith
Well put and kudos on speaking hard truth. If we keep safe it will be long-term problematic yet certainly if what we are seeing is cyclical, then it won’t last long, maybe things will change and the most bizarre but important innovations will come in where such technologies are used. If CitySourced is the most provocative idea on the board then perhaps social and other causes are ripe for these innovations of past waves which will in-turn create new waves. Just some ideas.
Agreed with regards to CitySourced — really thought the fact that the iPhone app changed the way humans interact with their environment made them a shoo-in to win.
Am still puzzled as to why they didn’t.
Sarah,
Mary Travers died yesterday. Do you know how old the hippies are now? They’re dying. Stewart Brand is lining up his vitamins and counting the days til the Singularity.
It’s time to stop anthropormorphizing technology and baking in ideologies into it and thinking it will “better” the world. People can better the world *with* technology — sometimes — if you don’t bake so much dogma into it. How is Facebook changing the world, really? Don’t tell me it’s helping crowdsource finds of stolen cell phones or raising money for breast cancer because you can do that with junk mail too. Twitter? Again, if it weren’t for old media reporting on the “firsts” of Twitter being used to raise money for disabled children, it wouldn’t work to do that. And so on. The claim for technology is overblown; the better-worldism stuff itself is threadbare.
Google bettering the world? Well, kinda. But it also destroyed value, destroyed the news and publishing industries and many other industries and bottomed out the record industry. Getting artists, musicians, journalists, and authors paid for their work now is going to be tremendously hard, actually impossible for a lot of them. So what’s better? That you can find 10 things to click on that other people clicked on?
There’s a reason we have a recession — financial transactions became too easy to do facelessly, instantly, online.
+1
A few of the tc50 companies were pretty interesting and had great ideas, such as City Sourced. The rest weren’t anything groundbreaking, just fun to play with, like Lissn or Threadsy.
A company in the demopit I found interesting was pip.io. They are trying to build a “social os”? Been playing with it a bunch and I can definitely see a huge potential in what it could become. Has anyone else played with it?
Other companies I thought were the best out of TC50 were Touchring, a web->phone widget and YourVersion, a personal filter for web content.
Ms. Lacy,
A dog-and-pony show is a dog-and-pony show is a dog-and-pony show. God forbid the day that arrives when Silicon Valley’s best VCs or “insiders” as it were, let their next Google be put in a dog-and-pony show.
Ditto….
And one more thought, Sarah:
Take out your check book and seed fund $20,000 in a company YOU think is the next Google. You have $20,000, so why not take that risk in the spirit of your article?
Only then you’ll realize why these companies can’t get funded now. The answer is:
1. You won’t do it.
2. You are scared to do it.
You are in good company, as 99.9% of the people around you won’t do it either. You and them keep every dollar you have with such strength that even if the next Google lands on your door you’ll ask for proof it is indeed the case. But, if somebody will show up and say “here is my business, I have customers, they pay me, and I need $20,000 to break-even” you might invest. Its just the law of the land.
Only 2nd timers Sarah, only 2nd timers.
Steve B, you hit the nail on the head. I’m amazed at so many comments wanting companies to swing for the fence when the establishment and even the TC50 screening process tends to weed those out. Remember folks, that the people in these firms have to eat and may have family to feed. We are working on a business that is “safe, profitable, and fundable”. We have ideas that could be groundbreaking but getting them funded will be next to impossible in this climate. I’ll take a $170 million exit any day.
The previous comment about many of the “experts” being lucky and/or not really experts is true too. Luck has always played a part in any success story from Microsoft to the owner of a string of tailor shops. If Digital Research had not blown off IBM, where would Microsoft be today? Successful? Probably. A megalith? Probably not. How many of the experts changed the world? Did Tim O’Reilly change the world? No. No one outside of the geek world has ever heard of him. Did he do very valuable stuff and make a pile of money in the process? You betcha. Robert Scoble? I love him but hardly a world changer.
Best post I’ve read in ages.
It’s possible this says more about the concept of the event than it does about the startups out there in the world. Would Google have bothered going to an event like TC50 when they were getting started? Probably not, I’d guess – they’d have been hard at work scrounging up servers and improving their algorithm and user experience.
Memo to Sarah Lacy: No. They’re supposed to be making money.
Note to Tom: Making money is just a side effect of greatness.
Note to Andrew: There’s nothing great at cash-for-gold, Amway, Investools, or any other MLM/Informercials scams and they make boat loads of money. Making money is a direct result of been savvy businessman / woman. There are tons of great minded people in all fields of life that live on the the dark side of not knowing if they can pay their bills next month.
Message to Dan: +1