> "but at least they are tackling something worthwhile"
Impact should be measured after companies have existed for years, not based on what they first set out to accomplish (company goals inevitably change). The Stanford company built a marginally improved product, and became sustainable. Since marginally improved products aren't really defensible (without a strong brand name), they'll likely continue to iterate on their product and in the long run will improve the tech drastically. Whether the intention or not, essentially they make money and use profits to invest in long term R&D, while the MIT company takes investor money up front to invest in R&D.
I think both approaches are suitable for different circumstances (based on background of founders, current state of market, whether radical or incremental improvements are needed to solve the core problem, etc). I don't like how people call something more or less worthwhile to work on, because wide distribution for a marginally improved product is better for the world than poor distribution for a revolutionary technology that never leaves a research lab.
Impact should be measured after companies have existed for years, not based on what they first set out to accomplish (company goals inevitably change). The Stanford company built a marginally improved product, and became sustainable. Since marginally improved products aren't really defensible (without a strong brand name), they'll likely continue to iterate on their product and in the long run will improve the tech drastically. Whether the intention or not, essentially they make money and use profits to invest in long term R&D, while the MIT company takes investor money up front to invest in R&D.
I think both approaches are suitable for different circumstances (based on background of founders, current state of market, whether radical or incremental improvements are needed to solve the core problem, etc). I don't like how people call something more or less worthwhile to work on, because wide distribution for a marginally improved product is better for the world than poor distribution for a revolutionary technology that never leaves a research lab.