Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any in the Boston area stand out? I know the east side is a lot more conservative as a group.
David Hornik is in Boston.
He was teaching there for a bit but I think he lives in Silicon Valley.
Why There Aren't More Googles
71–80 of 161 posts
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
That clearly doesn't square with how you saw it These statements don't conflict. They didn't sell out to the highest bidder, because the highest bidder wasn't offering enough, but they had a number.
I disagree Google had a number. It was clear from many stories that they were really not interested in selling at all, so they would throw around some outrageous number ( knowing it was outrageous), so nothing would happen. Calling such a person a seller-but-for-the-price is incorrect, IMHO.
Unfortunately I can't name my sources, but they came closer to a deal than that.
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles
#73this article makes the good point that the mba types who are running vc funds are fundamentally ill-suited for identifying and investing in technology startups. paul graham identified this as true for managers of startups as well; and this is a defining feature of yc--investing in technology people vs. investing in mba types who hire programmers. of course, the logical extension is that the people doing the investing…
whatever value mba vc types did bring to the table I still don't understand how they are valued at all. They don't invent anything, don't know how to help people who do, and are often bad at caretaking what has been built. This is not meant as a swipe at them, but I honestly do not understand why they are highly valued.
They're highly valued?
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles
#74"Why are VCs so conservative? ..." I just read a fascinating book - Gut Feelings by Gerd Gigerenzer. It's by the guy who did most of the research that Malcolm Gladwell's Blink is based upon. The central thesis was that people have evolved heuristics for decision making that let them quickly make snap decisions more effectively than gathering full information, but a couple chapters were on an interesting corollary: in…
"If VCs actually had solid conceptual frameworks and good data for evaluating possible opportunities, they could rely on that rather than on their peers' evaluations."
This is basically the argument for thesis driven investing. If you Google the term there is some good stuff, especially the posts by Bill Burnham and Fred Wilson.
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles
#75I am seriously having issues visualizing someone saying "this is not a good idea" to google founders. Perhaps I am too young or perhaps S&L were terrible salesmen, but I simply fail to see how come a relevant search seemed like a bad idea to VCs they talked to: and this is not 1995 we're talking here, back when Google was starting it was clear to many that everything was going to be online, and finding stuff will be…
Google will be obsolete once the semantic web arrives ;)
I remember being pretty skeptical of Google. Better search seemed like a nice idea, but it wasn't clear how they were going to compete with the established players who all had more money, more users, more engineers, more features, etc. Also, Google wasn't the only company trying to build a better search engine. It seemed like there was a new one every month.
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles
#76this article makes the good point that the mba types who are running vc funds are fundamentally ill-suited for identifying and investing in technology startups. paul graham identified this as true for managers of startups as well; and this is a defining feature of yc--investing in technology people vs. investing in mba types who hire programmers. of course, the logical extension is that the people doing the investing…
whatever value mba vc types did bring to the table I still don't understand how they are valued at all. They don't invent anything, don't know how to help people who do, and are often bad at caretaking what has been built. This is not meant as a swipe at them, but I honestly do not understand why they are highly valued.
Because, at least according to a handful of VCs at DFJ, 70% of the work they do involves interacting with and convincing other people (usually people who can help their portfolio companies in some way, shape, or form).
In general, MBAs are better at this than those with technical training.
Further, a VC doesn't have to understand the intimate technical details of an opportunity to recognize that it is a valuable opportunity.
I'm not saying this makes for a good relationship with your VC, but that's why the equilibrium set of employees tends towards MBAs instead of PhDs.
However, I think you'll find that many VCs in the top-tier did engineering at undergrad, then got an MBA.
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're wrong. We care mostly about the founders. And we have funded projects so ambitious that they've taken 2 years to build.
I'm curious: Where does the $15k number fit into that? At one point it was explained as "this should be enough money for you to live off for three months" -- if you're funding groups which take 2 years to launch, how are they supporting themselves for the remaining 21 months?
See the third paragraph: http://ycombinator.com/about.html
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles
#78I totally agree. We aren't looking for $2M or $20k, we're looking for the $400k range. Let me know if/when your VC friends get with it.
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles
#79I am seriously having issues visualizing someone saying "this is not a good idea" to google founders. Perhaps I am too young or perhaps S&L were terrible salesmen, but I simply fail to see how come a relevant search seemed like a bad idea to VCs they talked to: and this is not 1995 we're talking here, back when Google was starting it was clear to many that everything was going to be online, and finding stuff will be…
Google will be obsolete once the semantic web arrives ;) I remember being pretty skeptical of Google. Better search seemed like a nice idea, but it wasn't clear how they were going to compete with the established players who all had more money, more users, more engineers, more features, etc. Also, Google wasn't the only company trying to build a better search engine. It seemed like there was a new one every month.
If once = iff, that's the most optimistic assessment of Google I've ever read.
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles
#80Great write up, agree 100%. My startup (getclicky.com) was seeking around $100K about a year ago. We talked to a lot of people but could only find anyone who was interested in a very small (1M) investment. That's not what we wanted. At this point we have not taken a cent of investment and it has worked out fine, we're doing great on our own and it feels nice to own 100% of our company. But there is definitely a market for this medium sized investment that is not being fulfilled at all.