It's strange to me that people seem to want the average age of the start-up founder to be low...why is it more fun if the founder is young than if they are in their 40s?
As a side note, there are some insightful comments that point out the differences in the two data sets that the writer is referring to (a study vs. anecdotal evidence from VC Fred Wilson). But it's an interesting read, none the less.
"want the average age of the start-up founder to be low"
Then they must be brilliant. If a 40 year old was brilliant, then why didn't he do this 20 years ago? (They tend to forget that it wasn't like this 20 years ago.)
Seriously, don't kid yourself. It was a VERY DIFFERENT world back then. You graduated college and hoped you could find a job. There was no www and you needed 5 to 10 grand just for hardware and proprietary software. It's utterly stunning how easy it is to get started today compared to then.
(Bill Gates and Paul Allen went to the private Lakeside School which had a privately donated PDP-11 in 1968. Imagine being 13 years old and having access to the same computing power as Stanford University. The other 99.99% of us had to wait another 10 years for access to a computer.)
Mindset and almost no open source + internet/Arpanet infrastructure. (Internet changes marketing and distribution to the advantage of young entrepreneurs.) Twenty years ago, kids didn't have a long list of successful role models who made it big while young. Now, that's all you see in the media.
The only real reason why it's harder for older people to make a startup is the high risk involved. Once you have a family you cannot mess around anymore.
Actually I know quite a few couples where that's the case. Not all startups mind you, I have this musician friend...
But I've seen the "wife has high paying job with steady income, husband is kinda fly-by-night" pattern often enough that I wonder if other people see it too.
I never did find that kind of a women myself. Damn!
That's great! Everyone loves this comment since so many of us are banking on it (or have lived it). It just brought to mind my reading of some interviews in "Creativty" (http://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Flow-Psychology-Discovery-I...). There was more than one great mind who attributed his success to having a wonderfully supportive/responsible wife. He apologized for his sexist remark, but admitted that he would never have had his successes if it weren't for his wonderful companion who freed him from so much responsibility. (Sorry for fabricating some of this from the top of my head; I can't locate the interview right now.)
It actually makes sense since women are so risk-averse. Wives should support entrepreneurship by making it easier for their entrepreneurial husbands to take risks. And that means bringing in a steady income.
Unfortunately, this is what my ex-husband still believes. Not that he's started a business or anything, mind you.
That said, let's make the wild assumption that some women might be entrepreneurs, and rephrase this as: Isn't it the responsibility of the spouse to bring in a steady income?
This is a good snapshot of the population right now, I'm curious to know what the trends are. I suspect the 25-34 age category is growing and the 35-44 category is shrinking.
"When starting a startup was expensive, you had to get the permission of investors to do it. Now the only threshold is courage." [1]
As a side note, there are some insightful comments that point out the differences in the two data sets that the writer is referring to (a study vs. anecdotal evidence from VC Fred Wilson). But it's an interesting read, none the less.