He also surmises that Silicon Valley is dead because of a few observations about Facebook, while ignoring that Apple has become the largest company in the history of the known universe.
It is a bit short sighted, and while I disagree with the premise I'm certainly fine with Blank having an opinion that the 'glory days' of Silicon Valley are behind it.
But when I read that article I thought to myself, "Wow, here is someone that doesn't 'get' the valley at all." Because he didn't seem to remember that the valley "died" in 1984, if you recall that is when semi-conductor companies started going out of business and silicon was dead, it was all going off shore. Except that systems companies like Sun were being born, and Cisco, and a host of other infrastructure plays that were going to lead into the a huge up welling of innovation (and sadly patents). Then the dot com bubble burst and Silicon Valley 'died' again, no more would anyone build innovative tech companies in 'the valley' after all it was a wasteland, a burned out cinder that had burned brightly for half a dozen years, only to leave behind an infertile plain of concrete layups and landfills with t-shirts from companies nobody would ever remember. And now we've got Google, a re-born Apple, Ebay Etc. Facebook's IPO heralds the "end" of Silicon Valley? Really?
So when ever someone tells me that the valley is dead, and can't explain why this time it is actually going to die when the last several times it didn't die, I know that they don't understand why it lives, and thus can't reliably prognosticate about its death.
Its always interesting to read though. And when folks things it's dead, well smart people go out looking for the saplings.
"This guy" is Steve Blank[1]. He's kind of a big deal in SV and the startup scene in general. Whether or not you agree with his assessment of Valley culture, his personal cachet is such that it behooves you to take notice.
While we should take notice because he has a track record of knowing what he's talking about, we should evaluate his claims on its own, regardless of who makes the claim.
Is it true that VCs no longer invests in the hard sciences? I don't think so. There's VCs that invest in cleantech and biotech.
Is it true that VCs like quick returns and will increase investments in social media? Probably. In addition, they can only invest in what entrepreneurs are building.
Absolutely. While his argument should be evaluated on it's own merit, the fact that it's Steve Blank means it's likely worth evaluating.
But I still disagree with this particular opinion of his. :)
Social networks really, really aren't nearly as impactful in the the productive sense. They've mostly made it easier to chat with more people, and browse through more photos - things that are intensely interesting to people, but not really useful.
To your latter point, I can understand that most people use social networks to merely chat and browse drunken photos of friends, but that is like saying that all the invention of the telephone did was make it easier to share mindless banter with your friends. There are fringe benefits that arise from these kinds of technologies that could be really impactful. Twitter's use during the Arab Spring comes to mind as the most recent example of this.
I admit that Facebook doesn't provide any great "technological"/scientific achievement, but it does have a strong network effect supporting it; and that is something that can be impactful in a very productive sense.
To first approximation, humans have a fixed amount of daily attention span.[1] Automated driving will effectively increase the workforce by ~5%. The base rate of "maintenance attention" is already supplied, so much of the 5% will go to the margins, increasing the rate of progress. Since progress compounds exponentially over time, this is huge.
[1]Research I have read on the optimal length of work week, and other research on performance after sustained vigilence.
Cheap smartphones/tablets will totally transform the third world.
One good example is education:a billion+ people in the third world have awful or nonexistent education.Just imagine them having access to the best teaching in the world via khan academy, coursera etc. How will this change the world ?
What else could cheap smartphones/tablets do for the third world ? help tranform healthcare ? let them organize into big groups to achieve things? let marketers of usefull stuff cheaply reach them ?
The thing is that wasting commute time is a small problem relative to the problems the third world suffer from.And smartphones might have a big role to play in solving those.
Edit: how are tablet PCs disruptive? In several ways:
First, they have fewer components than any other form-factor complete computer and are cheaper to produce. Cheaper computers means more people that can buy computers which exponentially increases the number of people who buy computers when you consider the developing world. This is a feedback loop, technologically it's likely to be possible to make a profit on tablet pcs in the near future in a price range of tens of dollars per device.
Second, they are more user friendly for average users and their form factor offers advantages for normal users (portability, etc.) This makes them desirable as replacements for laptops and desktops for many people, as witnessed by the massive number of tablet pcs that have already been bought.
Third, they are excellent gaming platforms and will almost certainly compete on equal if not superior footing with other handheld gaming devices (which have sold hundreds of millions of devices already, not including software sales) and even traditional consoles and pcs. That industry is already larger than the film industry and growing rapidly, the growing market share of tablet gaming is nothing to scoff at.
Fourth, tablets don't require the same level of infrastructure as other computers. They have long battery life and low power usage, they don't necessarily need a hardline internet connection or a constant source of electricity. Someone in 2030 living in a 3rd world country could pay 1/100th their annual income for a tablet pc which has an e-ink display and can recharge via solar power. They could use it as an ebook reader most of the time and use it for other purposes such as communication and whatnot when they visit a city or someplace with free wifi or they could communicate point to point with folks with similar devices (using them as phones or relays, for example). That technology will change what it means to live in the 3rd world.
Fifth, the way that apps work on tablets is a natural match for line of business apps and corporate IT deployment and management. Future generations of tablets will make huge inroads in office computing, which is a huge business.
Yes, today they are sometimes toys, but there is a lot of money in toys, and such devices are far less toys than the original PCs were.
In terms of your points. (I'm assuming tablet = pad type of computer such as ipad, kindle, etc.):
1. Cheaper: Is this true compared to an ultra-low cost laptop, such as the OLPC X 1.75? They might have less components (no keyboard/mouse/touchpad), but capacitive touch screens aren't cheap (I believe $40 in the ipad2). So unless pricing closes in on keyboards (which go for around $10?), I see tablets as being pricier than laptops.
2/3. Agreed
4. Again, see #1. power consumption for low-end laptops is on-par with a tablet if not below. (XO 1.75 is 2W. XO-3 claims 1W).
5. Why is this so much different than a windows program?
So yes, I agree that tablets change things, but how much do they fundamentally improve a person's life? I agree some percentage of people will be taken from "not having a computer" to "having a computer/using it better", but in the end the tablet is just a lighter laptop you can use standing up and with friends easier. So ya, there's benefit, but world changing? I'd argue the laptop was just as, if not more, revolutionary than pad-formatted computers.
On the other hand, I feel automated cars are truly revolutionary. From the point of view of America:
1. 1% of Americans will die in a car crash and countless more will be injured. Automated systems will be an order of magnitude better than human drivers, so we'll see thousands of lives saved a year.
2. Without having to pay for a taxi driver or for expensive liability insurance, the price of a taxi will at least halve. At this point, there is less incentive to own cars and car ownership rate plummets, resulting in far fewer cars being produced (and cars being utilized at much higher rates). (I'm summarizing this famous post: https://plus.google.com/103583939320326217147/posts/TpN1g1oS...)
2a. Americans spend something like $300billion a year on new cars. Automated driving will save >$100B (1% of economy) annually.
3. Again, automated cars drive much better and can operate in situations too dangerous for humans (extremely close driving). With a good communication network, congestion operation will be much more efficient, leading to far less traffic and a reduced need to build more roads.
3a. Auto insurance industry a fraction of its original size. $150B+ savings
4. Driving jobs (taxi, truck) eliminated. That's over 4 million jobs. (2% of the workforce). Incredibly significant and another $100B in economic savings (of course assuming successful redirection to other economically productive activities).
Bottom line: In addition to regaining substantial time lost driving, America alone will save at least $350B a year. That's 2.5% of US GDP (and 25% of transportation gdp).
1. Less congestion
2. No need to find parking
Wouldnt it be more fair to say that the tablets finally do, what they promised us laptops would do?
I think the change to touch is quite radical, and that because all the ui stuff had to be reinvented, we were able to break away from all the desktop paradigmas.
These mobile OSes are fundamentally different: they allow a person to run managed untrusted applications, while minimizing battery life and maximizing security. This is a complete opposite of a desktop OS that is meant to run trusted applications with as much power, access and performance as possible.
The OLPC was great, but the tablets did make that compromize the new default for everybody.
Then again, i fully agree that self driving vehicles are more disruptive.
Most people in the world don't have any use for a computer, and a computer you consider dirt cheap is impossibly far out of reach for people who're wondering where their next meal is coming from. And even if they can afford the hardware, who do you suppose is going to pay for the wireless infrastructure, and why?
"Most people in the world don't have any use for a computer"
Wow, so short-sighted I don't even know where to begin. You must not know how deeply mobile technology has penetrated on earth. The fact that phones are now becoming small computers seems to completely escape you.
"And even if they can afford the hardware, who do you suppose is going to pay for the wireless infrastructure, and why?"
3rd world countries have wireless coverage. There are villages in Asia and Africa where a kid comes through on a bike (or horse!) with a car battery to charge people's phones in the slums for around a US penny or thereabouts.
Yes, it's a great first-world toy for teenagers and young adults.
>Wow, so short-sighted I don't even know where to begin. You must not know how deeply mobile technology has penetrated on earth. The fact that phones are now becoming small computers seems to completely escape you.
Likely not, as I work for a wireless provider and know, up to the minute, what our customers are doing (in the aggregate, of course). Mobile phones penetrated the market because you can use them as phones. That's the killer app. Sure, they're little computers and can do other things too. But they'd have the same penetration as the old Palm Pilot if they didn't make calls.
Tablets are too big to carry around with you everywhere. You might buy a phone and a tablet, but if money is tight you're not going to get both, and the phone is more useful.
>3rd world countries have wireless coverage. There are villages in Asia and Africa where a kid comes through on a bike (or horse!) with a car battery to charge people's phones in the slums for around a US penny or thereabouts.
Yes, but for what they pay they're not going to get the bandwidth you need to take advantage of a tablet. It makes perfect sense for people in far-flung villages to buy mobile phones - they can do things like arrange business transactions or check the latest prices for their crops. But they don't need an expensive data service to do it.
But that's not "disruption", it's just plain old improvement.
Ergo: the iPad is not a disruptive technology. It's just an improvement on existing stuff.
and more accesible to ordinary people.
Neither of these can be directly linked to the iPad or any tablet as a primary cause.
Arduinos and Raspberry Pis have more potential for really making a difference in the lives of people in said countries. It is very important that the children have devices that are open and frictionless to tinker on and with many user serviceable parts. Framing works for more than words. The right (lack of) packaging will prime curiosity. The imposing closed sleek finish of an ipad is more an object to be admired and treated with care. It would only engage the intellect of the most innately curious.
In an environment with little resources and infrastructure people have to resort to human ingenuity to cobble up solutions that satisfice. A computing device amenable to being cobbled with cheap odds and ends, for disparate scenarios, will have the more readily compounding effect.
What did mobile and social disrupt?
-Authoritarian governments. -Print media -Broadcast and cable TV -Anything people occupied their time with before it
What will/has the iPad disrupt/disrupted?
-Microsoft -Desktop & Laptop hardware manufacturers -Print books (asta la vista Borders) -Television sets
Steve Blank's complaint is basically that the margins are so good in this "new" market that all the money is being invested here and the next big disruptors are getting ignored.
I think as processing power continues to drop in price and mass market access to gigantic data sets grows, this will become a non-issue. The question is, will those disruptions come from somewhere outside of Silicon Valley?
I can walk from Seattle to Portland if I desired, the only advantage a car offers is convenience. Yet through that dramatic increase in convenience the car has proven to be one of the most disruptive inventions in history. Similarly, one can communicate, do graphic design, mix audio, produce movies, write letters and novels without a computer but the convenience afforded by computers and the internet has fundamentally transformed all of those activities.
An iPad, on the other hand, makes a few tasks marginally quicker, but is incapable of other tasks. It is marginally more portable. Yes, there are other benefits (as you state) but they are nothing compared to the amount of time that would be generated by self-driving cars. The average US citizen spends 7% of their life driving:
http://www.justanswer.com/general/0oy3c-time-does-person-spe...
Imagine the difference that could make. We could all play on our iPads more.
It's only 2-3 days by horse. You could do it in about a week on foot.
It has nothing to do with the journey itself, it is what that journey allows you to do. The settlers of the American West could not make that trip with any kind of regularity because it took so long. These days, you could live in Portland and work in Seattle. Admittedly, it would be miserable, but still. The ability to commute is life-changing.
Compare that to the iPad. It does make reading my e-mail slightly more convenient, yes. It allows a number of different UI interactions. None of these are life changing.
>technology will change what it means to live in the 3rd world
There is no 3rd world. Its 2012, not 1930. Income gaps are becoming localised, rather than globalized.
I understand your point, but i just hate the phrase, since it symbolizes the cartoonesque ignorance of the western world.
I think that autonomous vehicles will be revolutionary, but it's going to be 5-10 years before such claims are anything more than bold prognostications.
Manufacturing companies not only provide direct labor employment opportunities, but they also create 2-3 jobs in the local economy for every direct labor position.
The hardware companies of yesteryear made products that had a compounding value in the economy. Test and measurement equipment, processors, workstations, etc., were put to use making other products that had value, hence the compounding effect. I'm sure Apple products have a compounding value effect, but a company like Facebook probably doesn't, at least to the degree the old SV companies and their products did.
Sorry that's Microsoft, not Apple (even if during the dot com boom).
From Wiki:
Record Market Capitalization
On December 30, 1999 Microsoft reached an intraday high share price of $119.94[3]. With 5,160,024,593 outstanding shares (as of November 30, 1999),[4] it had a market capitalization of $618.9 billion. This was the highest market capitalization ever reached by a publicly traded company[5]. Adjusting for inflation to 2012, Microsoft's market capitalization would be $846 billion[
Apple only reached $600B.
Elon Musk: I think we can put a man on Mars within 10 years.
Bud: Who cares what this guy thinks? (...)
see what I mean?