[linguae]

I do agree that we need more public benefit companies; not every company needs to be a multi-billion dollar enterprise. However, I disagree that Silicon Valley “lost the plot.” In fact, I believe this has been the plot of Silicon Valley since at least the 1970s. While there were companies that focused on good products, sustainable business markets, and great business-employee relations (Hewlett-Packard when The HP Way ruled is a fine example), there’s also a very long history where companies and businesspeople focused on growth and profit over other concerns, and where employees had the potential for a big upside (through some combination of high salaries, big bonuses, stock options, RSU grants) if they were willing to sacrifice work-life balance. The Macintosh team circa 1983 had “90 hours a week and loving it!” T-shirts. This led to many innovative products, but these companies were clearly about growth and profits, with innovation being a means to an end (Scrooge McDuck piles of money) instead of the end itself, even if these companies did employ dreamers who cared less about money and more about their technical visions.

After having worked in Silicon Valley for nearly a decade, the area to me isn’t about building future Hewlett-Packards or In-n-Outs or Costcos, as wonderful as this would be for our society since we definitely need companies that are rooted in serving their customers and society. It’s about building future Apples, Microsofts, Googles, Facebooks, etc., where they went for the gold and ended up with tons of it as a result of their success.

[TylerE]

It ins't doing it though. It's splashing huge amounts of cash on performative BS like flashy SF office space (that's now sitting mostly unused) and not actually making products, even.

The goal stopped being about building a company and started being about building an acquisition target. Actually producing a product or innovating is secondary, if even considered.