I really dislike this sort of journalism. Theranos was founded by a 19 year old too. That one didn't work out so well. Was it because the founder was so young? The board so oblivious? (a bit of both if you read the book)
What does it really matter how "old" the founder is, does the business have a workable business plan? Can it be profitable? Do people pay enough money for its goods and services to return a net income? Those are interesting questions. That it was started by a teenager is not, to my way of thinking, particularly relevant.
I'd much prefer that the article focus on these things which helps us understand the value that they bring to the market and what makes them unique.
What does it really matter how "old" the founder is, does the business have a workable business plan? Can it be profitable? Do people pay enough money for its goods and services to return a net income? Those are interesting questions. That it was started by a teenager is not, to my way of thinking, particularly relevant.
I'd much prefer that the article focus on these things which helps us understand the value that they bring to the market and what makes them unique.