Were they? Individuals are more than capable of learning linear algebra, web frameworks, or any given hot tech in SV. Those historical loners had the massive disadvantage of not having reams of material detailing it and in some cases didn't have modern science because they invented it.
There's almost nothing going on in SV that actually requires large teams or funding, that's just how things are done. Even if individuals have disadvantages v groups, those disadvantages aren't obvious when the phds and top of the class people at Google are building incompatible chat apps (what do they have, 4?) and those at Facebook are forgetting to renew security certs so that VR headsets don't stop working. There's a massive amount of inefficiency there, and at times mediocrity, and that's possible when everyone can pass the buck. It's not nuclear fusion.
Surely the people at those companies as individuals are capable of producing much more than that?
You seem to be ignoring the gap between "large teams" and individuals. The sweet spot for a lot of tech innovation is single, modestly-sized teams.
Individuals working alone, though, are very rarely successful. There are just too many skills for one person to have, and a solo founder loses the advantage of different perspectives clashing and collaborating.
Unsurprisingly, investors are very reluctant to fund both solo founders and large teams. Seed money to support innovative work ends up mostly going to groups of 2-5 people.
I agree with you, but we just weren't discussing it.
My main point is it is possible for individuals to do great things. The gap between that and 75,000 person companies is not just huge, it's massive.
Honestly, what investors will or won't fund isn't that interesting to me because it seems to be root of lots of short sightedness. Investors have concerns antithetical (in many cases) to building great stuff.
My belief is the market's reliance on investors has biased what is or isn't possible. If so many people weren't concerned about what they would fund, we'd probably see more solo founders and we'd probably see more success there. With investor money around, there's less reason to do that, unless you are a masochist.
But yeah, most projects aren't single person, and groups have advantages even if they can be.
There's almost nothing going on in SV that actually requires large teams or funding, that's just how things are done. Even if individuals have disadvantages v groups, those disadvantages aren't obvious when the phds and top of the class people at Google are building incompatible chat apps (what do they have, 4?) and those at Facebook are forgetting to renew security certs so that VR headsets don't stop working. There's a massive amount of inefficiency there, and at times mediocrity, and that's possible when everyone can pass the buck. It's not nuclear fusion.
Surely the people at those companies as individuals are capable of producing much more than that?