This is an interesting post. There are a couple of points that I'm hesitant on, though. I wouldn't necessarily say I disagree with his position - just that I think there are some points that might need a bit more elaboration (ok, a bit more defending).
First is that the Hollywood model for talent may be an improvement over Silicon Valley in some ways. Kathy Sierra wrote a great post on this a while back:
In short - the Hollywood model where everyone comes together to complete a project and goes off looking for a new gig after it is completed may be a better model for tech work than the employer/employee model. This model heavily rewards talent that gets things done, and has no place for seat warmers. I do agree with Marc that it's good for the creators to be stakeholders with a share in the output - so that would improve things. Maybe this explains so much of the job hopping that goes on in Silicon Valley. Perhaps developers should vest at the completion of a product? After all, top talent at Google may be sitting around with golden handcuffs when they could be working on the next great release...
Another factor is the extreme expense of producing a truly professional film. Yes, technology is getting cheaper and more available, but tens of millions is still a small budget for a feature film. I'm not a big fan of special effects for their own sake, but I thought "Jurassic Park" was pretty much awesome, took trememdous technical expertise and innovation, and was ultra-expensive. I suppose this capital could now be raised from VCs rather than studio heads.
Think VC's in the film industry would be willing to give the same kind of creative freedom we (only sometimes) see in tech startups? It's a tempting idea, no doubt about it...
First is that the Hollywood model for talent may be an improvement over Silicon Valley in some ways. Kathy Sierra wrote a great post on this a while back:
http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/0...
In short - the Hollywood model where everyone comes together to complete a project and goes off looking for a new gig after it is completed may be a better model for tech work than the employer/employee model. This model heavily rewards talent that gets things done, and has no place for seat warmers. I do agree with Marc that it's good for the creators to be stakeholders with a share in the output - so that would improve things. Maybe this explains so much of the job hopping that goes on in Silicon Valley. Perhaps developers should vest at the completion of a product? After all, top talent at Google may be sitting around with golden handcuffs when they could be working on the next great release...
Another factor is the extreme expense of producing a truly professional film. Yes, technology is getting cheaper and more available, but tens of millions is still a small budget for a feature film. I'm not a big fan of special effects for their own sake, but I thought "Jurassic Park" was pretty much awesome, took trememdous technical expertise and innovation, and was ultra-expensive. I suppose this capital could now be raised from VCs rather than studio heads.
Think VC's in the film industry would be willing to give the same kind of creative freedom we (only sometimes) see in tech startups? It's a tempting idea, no doubt about it...