The Stanford Startup and the MIT Startup (2013)
fpgacomputing.blogspot.com
The Stanford Startup and the MIT Startup (2013)
1–10 of 78 posts
Re: The Stanford Startup and the MIT Startup (2013)
#2I find this kind of rhetorical device tiring to read when it goes on and on like this. Once I read the conclusion I felt like I'd be cheated and it could have just said that in the beginning.
Re: The Stanford Startup and the MIT Startup (2013)
#3What is (maybe better left) unspoken are the kinds of errors attributable to both strategies. The really great tech that never makes it to consumers and is lost, only to be rediscovered years later--MIT. Garbage software that consumers are tricked or forced into using--Stanford.
Re: The Stanford Startup and the MIT Startup (2013)
#4[deleted]
Re: The Stanford Startup and the MIT Startup (2013)
#5Might as well called Stanford B2C and MIT B2B. Yeah, B2B needs more capital since they are building a plant while B2C is really about sourcing materials, packaging and marketing. Completely different businesses, different CapEx and OpEx models, different risks and different investors.
Re: The Stanford Startup and the MIT Startup (2013)
#6Might as well called Stanford B2C and MIT B2B. Yeah, B2B needs more capital since they are building a plant while B2C is really about sourcing materials, packaging and marketing. Completely different businesses, different CapEx and OpEx models, different risks and different investors.
I thinks it’s more hard tech vs traditional startup.
Re: The Stanford Startup and the MIT Startup (2013)
#7Discussed at the time:
The Stanford Startup and the MIT Startup - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6715864 - Nov 2013 (85 comments)
Re: The Stanford Startup and the MIT Startup (2013)
#8Might as well called Stanford B2C and MIT B2B. Yeah, B2B needs more capital since they are building a plant while B2C is really about sourcing materials, packaging and marketing. Completely different businesses, different CapEx and OpEx models, different risks and different investors.
Yes, it’s apples to oranges, I don’t really see much value in the analysis.
Re: The Stanford Startup and the MIT Startup (2013)
#9Intellectual property generated at universities that accept any taxpayer funding whatsoever should belong to the taxpayer, meaning any US citizen should automatically have access to that IP under a free non-exclusive license.
If you don't like this, tell the billionaires to go back to funding private research centers (e.g. Bell Labs) and they can own all the IP generated there outright.
Otherwise, it's just a ripoff of the taxpayer by state-subsidized 'entrepreneurs' which makes a mockery of the whole free-market capitalist competition system they claim to support. Ultimately, we end up with a system of aristocrats gambling at casinos who are given government bailouts every time they make a stupid bet - which is not sustainable over the long run.
Re: The Stanford Startup and the MIT Startup (2013)
#10As true today as it was back then. At MIT the atmosphere is around hard tech startups. That's even what the MIT accelerator specializes in https://engine.xyz/