Something is wrong with the premise of this article.
It goes on to say that most companies that mad it huge were not "initially popular" with young people. But that is a bit of a sleight of hand for two reasons: (1) many of those businesses were <invented> or revolutionized by young people or students; and (2) it ignores the role that young people played in the discovery/momentum/tipping point to their widespread adoption. In otherwords, the two most critical parts of their value realization. Lastly (3) is the category of items that were or are only relevant in the land where (1) and (2) already happend. These are essentially "derivative works" in terms of their core value. Things like LinkedIn (derives value from FB proven use case); and Gmail (widely adopted and propogated through google) etc. come readily to mind. Out of context, they would likely be worth an order of magnitude less than they are perceived today.
Once you eliminate all that, there is really not much left in the article. The premise and idea may still have value, but whatever value that is must be found using different examples and explanartions, IMHO.
It goes on to say that most companies that mad it huge were not "initially popular" with young people. But that is a bit of a sleight of hand for two reasons: (1) many of those businesses were <invented> or revolutionized by young people or students; and (2) it ignores the role that young people played in the discovery/momentum/tipping point to their widespread adoption. In otherwords, the two most critical parts of their value realization. Lastly (3) is the category of items that were or are only relevant in the land where (1) and (2) already happend. These are essentially "derivative works" in terms of their core value. Things like LinkedIn (derives value from FB proven use case); and Gmail (widely adopted and propogated through google) etc. come readily to mind. Out of context, they would likely be worth an order of magnitude less than they are perceived today.
Once you eliminate all that, there is really not much left in the article. The premise and idea may still have value, but whatever value that is must be found using different examples and explanartions, IMHO.