In September 2015, the Founders Fund convened a retreat at an eco-resort in British Columbia. The majority of attendees were VCs and representatives from the companies they supported, but a handful of outsiders were also invited, including computer innovator Alan Kay, author Neal Stephenson, and myself.
One morning during breakfast, I found myself seated across from Kay at a lengthy table. As Kay, the inventor of the Dynabook—essentially the prototype of the modern computer—shared his experiences, Founders Fund’s Peter Thiel joined our table. Kay spoke enthusiastically about refining the mouse and consulting for Steve Jobs, while Thiel’s skepticism became increasingly evident. Sooner or later, Thiel inquired of Kay, “Who ARE you?” Taken aback, Kay attempted to recount his accomplishments but realized they could sound exaggerated to someone unfamiliar. He halted mid-sentence and acknowledged, “I’m just an old has-been,” before continuing with his breakfast. This encapsulated a moment of disconnection between two distinct realms.
In contemplating this, I came across a New York Times op-ed titled “Silicon Valley Was Right From the Start” by Sharon Weinberger. She contended that the perception of Silicon Valley as being driven by counterculture was misleading. The current trajectory toward substantial wealth and military technology integration reflects the industry’s true essence. Her essay served to promote her book “Valley of Death: How Big Tech Is Fueling the Future of War.”
Weinberger asserted that the values of Silicon Valley had not altered, only the clientele, framing the industry’s interest in military technology as an adaptation to market demands rather than an ideological transformation. She argued that the ideals of the PC and Internet eras were merely superficial to facilitate product sales and increase profits.
I hold a different view. Beginning in the late 1970s, a generation of technologists inspired by counterculture spurred innovation, laying the groundwork for the current industry wealth. Although the ties to the defense sector remained, newer generations were idealistic, often opposing conventional practices. This shift influenced both the tech industry and the overall business culture in America. To dismiss this idealism is erroneous and serves to rationalize the new generation’s pivot toward military contracts.
Upon sharing my perspective with Weinberger, she acknowledged my closer ties to tech culture but stood by her op-ed. She remarked, “We’re products of what we grow up in,” and the evolution from defense to consumer markets reflects the varied values and necessities of their respective epochs.
She maintained that the shift to lucrative prospects, like military technology, does not indicate ideological changes but rather addresses market requirements. The primary motivation remained company success. For instance, Apple collaborated with the military only when the consumer market was sufficient.
