>Those VCs are not AZ16 + those startups are not the future facebooks or googles of the world
Perhaps not. But, when the article is quoting Jobs as saying:
“I want to make a ding in the universe. I want to make beautiful products that people love.”
It makes me wonder how we're defining mission. Making products that people love is what every company strives to do. Doesn't seem like much of a standard to me, and declaring that by so doing you hope to make a dent in the universe doesn't make it any moreso.
So, I'd ask Mr. Andreessen, "Is that it? Does the desire to make products that people love qualify for a16z's mission requirement?" Because, if so, then I'm having trouble seeing where that investment philosophy really differs.
The other part is with regard to recruiting and the overall SV ethos. It may be true that select people want to work for companies with a mission. And, maybe many do--all things being equal. But, his "insight" that a person would rather work for $120K plus a mission than $120K and no mission is self-evident and doesn't tell us anything. The test of his theory is whether people are willing to work for $60K plus a mission.
And the thing is we know that so many people are really just chasing a buck. We see this in what has been coming out of SV; the glut of copycat and uninspired businesses aimed at this or that trivial opportunity and the relative dearth of companies taking on really hard or "mission-worthy" challenges.
I am not saying that there are zero companies of the latter ilk. I am saying that this article is making statements about the current reality that just don't ring true. Look no further than the "fail-fast", "iterate quickly", "look for pivots", "find product-market fit" culture that has dominated SV over recent years. Do any of those things sound conducive to building companies that are on a mission? Or do they sound more applicable to companies that are just looking to make a buck any way they can?
Maybe Mr. Andreessen is decrying that same culture. But, the article doesn't help by making declarations about the current state that don't appear to be accurate.
Perhaps not. But, when the article is quoting Jobs as saying:
“I want to make a ding in the universe. I want to make beautiful products that people love.”
It makes me wonder how we're defining mission. Making products that people love is what every company strives to do. Doesn't seem like much of a standard to me, and declaring that by so doing you hope to make a dent in the universe doesn't make it any moreso.
So, I'd ask Mr. Andreessen, "Is that it? Does the desire to make products that people love qualify for a16z's mission requirement?" Because, if so, then I'm having trouble seeing where that investment philosophy really differs.
The other part is with regard to recruiting and the overall SV ethos. It may be true that select people want to work for companies with a mission. And, maybe many do--all things being equal. But, his "insight" that a person would rather work for $120K plus a mission than $120K and no mission is self-evident and doesn't tell us anything. The test of his theory is whether people are willing to work for $60K plus a mission.
And the thing is we know that so many people are really just chasing a buck. We see this in what has been coming out of SV; the glut of copycat and uninspired businesses aimed at this or that trivial opportunity and the relative dearth of companies taking on really hard or "mission-worthy" challenges.
I am not saying that there are zero companies of the latter ilk. I am saying that this article is making statements about the current reality that just don't ring true. Look no further than the "fail-fast", "iterate quickly", "look for pivots", "find product-market fit" culture that has dominated SV over recent years. Do any of those things sound conducive to building companies that are on a mission? Or do they sound more applicable to companies that are just looking to make a buck any way they can?
Maybe Mr. Andreessen is decrying that same culture. But, the article doesn't help by making declarations about the current state that don't appear to be accurate.