Slashdot Mirror
Under 30 and On The Cutting Edge
conq writes "BusinessWeek has an interesting piece on cutting edge technology entrepreneurs under 30. From the article: 'Don't look at what the industry is doing,' Erchak says. 'Look at what they're not doing and focus on that. That's where the real disruptive technology comes from.'"
is not that sharp according to Business Week :)
:)
After all, this guy is 31 and this guy is 30. Hell, at 37, I might be able to squeak by
I'm surprised we made it to 2006 without thinking of this.
The two new ones are a simulator for pharmaceutical development and a new approach to solid state light sources. Those may or may not work, but they're real developments.
This all makes sense because by age 30, most of us nerds are broken shells of mangled human flesh: Thick glasses, crooked spines, carpal tunnel syndrome, high blood pressure... long term effects of working in the high speed world of information technology.
And lets not forget about the stress-related impotence! How do you expect anyone to be innovative when they're out of libidious mojo?
We hit our mid-life crisis at age-15 when we spend all our allowance on the newest AMD chips, graphics cards, and video games.
I'm half way through my 20s and I'm not looking forward to being a grizzled and worthless dinosaur in the next 5 years... but such is the price we pay.
=P
(sorry to anyone over 30)
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
Advice: "Surround yourself with really, really smart people and don't be afraid to give them equity, because it's all about the team," says Sternberg.
Translation: Surround yourself with women at your workplace, and you are halfway there to actually getting a date.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I would but I just turned 30, so im no longer allowed.
From the article...
What's the most common error made by startup entrepreneurs?
Easily the biggest problem is when you have a founder who is sentimentally attached to his company to the point where he won't let go and accept help. Especially with technology firms, the founder tends to be passionate about the product and tends to come out of an educational-engineering environment with very little expertise in the business world.
This is so true- whether in business or on message boards (like this). I got my start in tech, but went on to get a JD and a MBA- and now my true techie friends love to make fun of me. But the truth is, hubris can sink about anything- Knowing a lot about tech does not mean that you know anyting about business (and vice versa)
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
Having been involved in a number of successful businesses over the years, I can tell you that good ideas are a dime a dozen. There's no huge mystery about what's successful and what isn't... look around you.
The difference between someone who is successful and someone who isn't is execution. The world is full of people who dream big but don't get off their ass and do it.
What people don't get is that you don't have to be the dominant player on the block to make a LOT of money, but what it does require is taking a risk and putting yourself out there. Find your little niche and set up shop. The world is like a raging river of money. You don't have to set up a very big flume to get a pretty good stream coming to you.
And if (or when...) you fail the first couple of times, learn from your mistakes, get back up and try again.
Just a step at a time, folks. Just take a step a time. It's not how fast you're stepping, but the fact that you're stepping at all.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
But whatever it is, make sure it runs in the web browser with plenty of AJAX.
How exactly is meebo a disruptive technology?
...at your age, Mozart was already dead.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
There are people who are technically gifted and are chrismatic enough to sell whatever it is they're working on but they're few and far between.
A few simple rules:
(1)know your product and be able to explain it to investors who might not have the technical training to immediately grasp what it is you're proposing. Stay away from the trap too many technical trained people fall into of overwhelming potential investors or customers with unnecessary detail, (I failed this test repeatedly).
(2) Have a business plan and enough money to go 5 years without outside investors. Many government agencies provide templates that will allow you to lay out a business plan that a banker or investor can easily understand. Don't go to a bank or potential investor with a bunch of loose papers and a lot of hand waving. Most businesses I've seen fail went into business looking to turn a profit in the first year. Statistics show the vast majority of businesses need at least five years to break even.
I'm currently about to undertake development of two ideas that I've worked on for the last ~5 years. I'm fairly sure both will succeed. As per the article both of my ideas are innovative and not visible on the web today, but along with the innovation I've spent a few years laying out a plan, both as to actual development and marketing. You must know why your project will succeed, you should know what might cause it to fail.
And then there's luck, just being in the right place at the right time.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
This tripe from Business Week is just another paean to the cult of youth, a slap in the face of those who've actually been around a while.
People forget that the "under 30" crowd was responsible for some of the stupidest, lamest, and most ridiculous excesses of the dot bomb. The recipe for dot com success was to only hire "young" (under 30, RCG) developers, because you "can't teach an old dog new tricks". It didn't work then, and it's still stupid now.
The best development environment is a mix of young, middle aged, and older developers. The elder developers season the brashness of youth with experience (and pointing out why web businesses to just sell 50# bags of dog food are stupid), and the younger ones inspire creativity where the elders had become complacent.
Would you trust a 25 year old bank president? Would you want to drive a car designed totally by a 22 year old recent college grad without the benefit of verification by a senior engineer? I wouldn't. So why in the hell should our software and computer hardware be only the product of young minds?
Business Week should know better than to shill for the "young is best" nonsense. We've seen where that crap leads - I read lots of articles just like it in 1998 and 1999. For shame.
BTW, I'm 44, and I said it was stupid the last time this "concept" got touted too - seven years ago...
use Sig::Witty;
there are cutting edge developers over the age of 30, why are they not being covered as well? Yet again, another discrimination issue.
Note, I am a cutting edge developer over the age of 30, and I know of many others as well.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Actually, my point is that you DON'T need to find something that "nobody else is filling". It's incredibly hard to find totally virgin territory. If you're waiting for that to happen, you'll probably have a very long wait.
The play with a much higher probability of success is to find a niche with a lot of demand. The fact that there are a lot of players making money there means that it's a successful niche! The trick is to find a way to elbow your way into your share of the business (that's also called "marketing"). Of course, you want to choose a niche that you're good at.
Take Internet hosting companies. Tons of 'em, right? Well, that's because the market is big enough to support tons of them. You don't have to reinvent the idea of a hosting company to have a successful little business with recurring income. That's just an example -- there are lots of little businesses like that.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
'Don't look at what the industry is doing,' Erchak says. 'Look at what they're not doing and focus on that. That's where the real disruptive technology comes from.'
Actually, that's incredibly stupid advice.
The industry is not making a Linux enterprise server which is powered by an exercise bike.
The industry is not making a faraday-shielded mobile phone antenna (safe for use in hospitals!)
The industry is not making a toilet with remote login.
The industry is not making an accessory for the two-player console fighter which castrates the loser with a piano wire.
The industry is not making caskets with built-in LCD monitors.
Which of those ideas will make me a millionaire the fastest?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The toilet.
Does the toilet have an open port? I'll just try to log on remotely and dump a file.
Saves time. This is a paperless transaction.