<p><pre><code> In pursuing the latest and the coolest, young engineers ignore
opportunities in less-sexy areas of tech like semiconductors, data
storage and networking, the products that form the foundation on which
all of Web 2.0 rests. Without a good router to provide reliable Wi-Fi,
your Dropbox file-sharing application is not going to sync; without
Nvidia’s graphics processing unit, your BuzzFeed GIF is not going to
make anyone laugh. The talent — and there’s a ton of it — flowing into
Silicon Valley cares little about improving these infrastructural
elements. What they care about is coming up with more web apps.
</code></pre>
While I agree somewhat in principle, especially with the example about GPUs, but I think the viewpoint of this article greatly discounts the value of the open-source byproducts from many of the Web 2.0 companies.<p>For example, scaling to the levels that Facebook has presented many novel challenges and opportunities to push productivity in traditional computing areas. The open-compute project, face recognition, apache thrift (which builds upon ideas that began with protocol buffers), etc. are all ways in which some foundational technologies were the by-product of pursuing the creation of a social software empire.<p>That said, I also think this journalist is blindly by his own industry. There are plenty of cool startups working on foundational technology, it's just that they aren't as sexy and stories about them don't attract as many eyeballs. Take Planet Labs for example. That's some pretty foundational area in terms of how Space has been valuable to humans and they are aiming to democratize access to have an eye in Space. Maybe the author just doesn't know how to discover tech companies that haven't already been discovered for him by the pop tech journalism media?