[rcarrigan87]

Despite the echo-chamber of SV and tech media, most successful founders are older, with real world industry experience.[0]

This data probably doesn't reflect the insane number of 20 somethings chasing ideas in markets like the dating space right now. Most of them fail.

I work in the senior care market and I'm shocked there aren't more businesses being started around that market. It's absolutely huge with endless opportunity. But I guess that kind of proves your point...

[0]https://hbr.org/2014/04/how-old-are-silicon-valleys-top-foun...

[exelius]

Yeah, you're right. But if you look at the really big companies, nearly all were started by young founders (Facebook, Google, etc.) And that's what kids (and the media) focus in on.

IMO experienced founders are great for building a cash cow business worth $1 billion or so. That takes hard work and a billion dollars is a fucking lot of money, so it's nothing to scoff at. But it's not primarily what VCs are interested in: the VC model is built off of small equity stakes in $10 billion+ IPOs.

To have a $10 billion+ IPO, you need to invent a market, and young kids are great at that because they don't see the limitations the market has placed on us. Most don't have the fucking slightest about finance or money, which can be an impediment if you're trying to create a product in an existing market, but if you're building a new market or category, short-term viability matters less.

That said, there are a lot more ideas that can turn into successful $1 billion companies than ideas that can become $100 billion companies. So your odds are a lot better at starting a successful business if you learn how first.

And to your point about senior care... most VCs who don't focus on health care avoid it entirely for similar reasons they avoid dating apps. You can either go the medical device/biotech route and spend hundreds of millions on lawyers and regulatory approvals, or you can go after the provider side of things. The healthcare IT space is pretty saturated and very fragmented, so it ends up scaling like a consulting business (which VCs are also not fond of).

[rcarrigan87]

All good points. For the record, I was more talking about any product or service aimed at the 65+ crowd (not necessarily healthcare specific). It's a very underserved group of individuals who also happen to have all the money!

[alaskamiller]

Where are these 10 billion dollar ipos and these billion dollar businesses that investors don't want to touch?

What are these magical markets invented by oh-so-spry out-of-box-thinking unburdened-by-reality type of kids?

[ansible]

I think they're talking about things like WhatsApp, Instagram, and SnapChat.

If you had asked me about each of them before I'd heard of them, I would have told you that they are all solved problems. That SMS, email, and the existing photo-sharing apps are "good enough".

However, these companies are apparently solving people's problems (hence the large userbase for each), even if I personally don't use them and don't quite understand the value proposition that each provides.

[umeshunni]

Except that WhatsApp was started by a 30something experienced founder pair.

[billyhoffman]

This.

My startup is part of the ATDC Select program/incubator in Atlanta. There are roughly 30 companies around various verticals. I'm in my early 30's and I'm among the youngest of the founders. Many of these people are in their late 30's/40's/or more and been through multiple startups.

(funny enough maybe 20% of the companies are healthcare related, so maybe there are doing what they know)

Maybe in other places startups are a only-kids game, but not here.

[beat]

Minneapolis is a bit like that, too. I think the real interesting angle here is the enterprise. We are to Fortune 500 as Silicon Valley is to startups - there are more Fortune 500 HQs per capita here than anywhere else in the world, including the Bay area, NYC, London, and Tokyo.

It's still a fledgling movement, but I think we will see more and more startups here emerging from the corporate giants, developing new tools to meet their needs.

[madcaptenor]

See for example http://academicvc.com/2013/07/05/startups-for-grownups/ regarding the idea that Atlanta startups aren't just for kids.

[balls187]

> This data probably doesn't reflect the insane number of 20 somethings chasing ideas in markets like the dating space right now. Most of them fail.

Without being ageist, I think that you see a disproportionate number of younger founders simply because their current situation better allows for taking risks. When you have a family and are are responsible for at least 1/2 the household income, that choice becomes a lot harder.

My theory is that age is only a proxy for success, given that most businesses fail because they run out of money. Older founders may have access to larger war chests than younger founders.

[cookiecaper]

Older founders' main contribution is a larger war chest of experience to draw from, even if they also have larger personal networks and some personal savings to make them less dependent on the seed-stage investor. I personally believe that if investors were more willing to make the startup calculation reasonable for stable adults, we'd have far better results at the macro level. 20-somethings are cool, but they are still very young and very naive. It seems most non-tech industries have already internalized that. Tech will eventually mature into that realization as technically-adept generations age.

[scardine]

Being naive - in the sense of looking the world through the eyes of a child - is one of the best qualities in a founder because startups are so counterintuitive.

How many grown-ups with lots of industry experience said no for young Microsofties, Googles or Facebooks?

- A social network for college students? What a stupid idea!

[beat]

Look at it this way... older founders may be less likely to create a unicorn, but they're more likely to create a business.

[fsk]

I'm more interested in starting a business that has a 90% chance of being worth $10M than a business that has a 1% chance of being worth $1B.

A business that has a 90% chance of being worth $10M isn't suitable for VC.

[balls187]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but the expected value is higher on the 1% chance for 1B

[cookiecaper]

>Being naive - in the sense of looking the world through the eyes of a child

This is not the sense that I meant. I meant naive in the sense that they're ignorant of many subtle but important behavioral practices in both corporations and people, and that they often haven't developed much personal discipline. It's not their fault, of course; they're just young. Youth is good for its zeal, but corporations should generally not be run by zealots, they should be run by mature, calculating, and sensitive persons (and very few young people qualify). Zealots belong in the marketing and sales departments.

By the age they become founders, I think most people have had most of the child-like wonder beat out of them, and in fact I think the early and mid 20s are a dark time for a lot of people, with the pressures of exiting the scholastic world and entering the professional world, frequently with a beast of debt on their backs, and the rejection and failure incumbent in trying to date and find a lifelong companion.

[balls187]

Founders aren't children. They are typically post college graduates. And they typically must include one that has an engineering degree, hopefully with some pedigree to it.

[alaskamiller]

Microsoft invested in Facebook 3 years after it was made at a 15 billion dollar valuation and everyone laughed.

[beat]

I feel that pain. I just spent months building the alpha of my own software, making no money with grownup expenses. Then my wife got laid off, so I had to jump in and get another dayjob so someone would be making money.

I don't really have access to any sort of a larger war chest. What I do have is a much better idea than Snapchat for Drunks, because I have a lot of real-world professional experience, and I know how to actually build complex software, because I've been doing it for decades.

My killer is overcoming the cautious nature of too many years in the enterprise. It's easy to overbuild and not be lean.

[fsk]

>I work in the senior care market and I'm shocked there aren't more businesses being started around that market. It's absolutely huge with endless opportunity. But I guess that kind of proves your point...

Senior/health care is heavily regulated, making it hard to innovate and undercut legacy providers. "Uber for old age homes" just doesn't work.

[JonFish85]

Transportation is fairly heavily regulated as well. Someone could probably do an Uber for old folks that ignores laws and pushes the liabilities onto "independent contractors".

[TheOtherHobbes]

Maybe. But a few scandal stories will kill that idea.

Everyone wants a cab. No one wants a geriatric care home - not even when they're living in one.

Having said that, I recently discussed some possibilities with a couple of local care home owners. Currently there isn't enough smartphone take up to make some obvious ideas viable, but that will start changing soon, and then there may be some very rich pickings to be had.

This is the real reason Apple etc are piling into health apps. The biggest buyers won't be marathon-running twenty year olds, but scared-of-death >fifty year olds.

[tjr226]

Hey, I'm interested in chatting with you about the opportunities you see... I'm not in SV and would be happy creating a sub-$1bn company.

What's a good way to get in touch with you?

[bliti]

I'll gladly chat about that market over email. It's always interesting to learn about such things. Where should I email you?