Not wanting to focus on scale may not be just about being risk-averse. Scale is homogenizing and impersonal and may require large amounts of venture capital at a loss of founder control. In many cases it is motivated not for maximizing impact but instead for maximizing rapid wealth extraction while ignoring societal impact. This latter motivation is how I would characterize Silicon Valley.
Yes, I agree that not focusing on scale isn't only about risk!
I disagree with several of your other points, though. Perhaps most notably: if you believe that some companies in Silicon Valley ignore (or at least underweight) societal impact, wouldn't it be best to measure and focus on that impact, rather than try to discourage scaling?
There's a difference between not focusing on scaling (because it's the wrong thing to focus on) and discouraging scaling. Though there are certainly arguments for discouraging it -- including this one, that contrasts the mass-production nature of "scale" with the a model of natural and sustainable "growth":
How exactly would these Silicon Valley wonders focus on societal impact, when their boards and investors care more about the financial return? The societal value also isn't always well attributable to the entity that produces it. To take one of the great quotes from this collection on the topic: https://sublime.app/collection/the-goal-is-resonance-not-scale
"The first Velvet Underground album only sold 10,000 copies, but everyone who bought it formed a band." -Brian Eno
There is also an element of time in all of this - what you're talking about is optimizing for the most production (even if it's production of impact) per unit of time, or the most scaling in the shortest time, vs. an organization or idea that could last and grow and adapt and evolve for 100 or 1000 years, and the cumulative impact it could have. Now who's thinking small?
Ugh - this frustrated me so much. I apologize for my Ill made and jumbled response.
Your point about risk is poorly considered. For many creators, the goal isn’t to reach many but to earn respect. Respect thrives on individuality, not group appeal. Only a single customer is needed to provide that respect.
Scaling forces trade-offs: efficiency over nuance. Creators value direct connection. The compromises brought on by scaling feel wrong. They didn’t start a business to ruthlessly optimize output. Fundamentally, most aren’t avoiding risk, they are avoiding compromising, frankly adopting risk.
SW products are inherently easy to scale, because as autonomous agents, they can’t drop in quality when they are replicated. This isn’t true for real products, thus furthering lowering the risk of scaling.
Not wanting to focus on scale may not be just about being risk-averse. Scale is homogenizing and impersonal and may require large amounts of venture capital at a loss of founder control. In many cases it is motivated not for maximizing impact but instead for maximizing rapid wealth extraction while ignoring societal impact. This latter motivation is how I would characterize Silicon Valley.
Yes, I agree that not focusing on scale isn't only about risk!
I disagree with several of your other points, though. Perhaps most notably: if you believe that some companies in Silicon Valley ignore (or at least underweight) societal impact, wouldn't it be best to measure and focus on that impact, rather than try to discourage scaling?
There's a difference between not focusing on scaling (because it's the wrong thing to focus on) and discouraging scaling. Though there are certainly arguments for discouraging it -- including this one, that contrasts the mass-production nature of "scale" with the a model of natural and sustainable "growth":
https://www.growbyginkgo.com/2023/05/01/against-scale/
How exactly would these Silicon Valley wonders focus on societal impact, when their boards and investors care more about the financial return? The societal value also isn't always well attributable to the entity that produces it. To take one of the great quotes from this collection on the topic: https://sublime.app/collection/the-goal-is-resonance-not-scale
"The first Velvet Underground album only sold 10,000 copies, but everyone who bought it formed a band." -Brian Eno
There is also an element of time in all of this - what you're talking about is optimizing for the most production (even if it's production of impact) per unit of time, or the most scaling in the shortest time, vs. an organization or idea that could last and grow and adapt and evolve for 100 or 1000 years, and the cumulative impact it could have. Now who's thinking small?
Ugh - this frustrated me so much. I apologize for my Ill made and jumbled response.
Your point about risk is poorly considered. For many creators, the goal isn’t to reach many but to earn respect. Respect thrives on individuality, not group appeal. Only a single customer is needed to provide that respect.
Scaling forces trade-offs: efficiency over nuance. Creators value direct connection. The compromises brought on by scaling feel wrong. They didn’t start a business to ruthlessly optimize output. Fundamentally, most aren’t avoiding risk, they are avoiding compromising, frankly adopting risk.
SW products are inherently easy to scale, because as autonomous agents, they can’t drop in quality when they are replicated. This isn’t true for real products, thus furthering lowering the risk of scaling.