Sequoia Capital: Armchair quarterbacks
37signals.com
Sequoia Capital: Armchair quarterbacks
1–10 of 40 posts
Re: Sequoia Capital: Armchair quarterbacks
#2This seems like blatant linkbaiting from 37signals, and frankly I think it's childish.
They know quite well (or at least they should) that the reason some companies get a huge cash injection from investors is to grow fast and grab marketshare. This costs a lot of money. It's a risky strategy but if it works it pays off bigtime. The get fast big strategy is obviously not for 37signals, but I'm sure they are aware that there are people in the world that have had success with it. Amazon comes to mind as a classic example.
What Sequoia is saying now is that the get big fast strategy will have to be postponed if you want to survive. And they're right.
Re: Sequoia Capital: Armchair quarterbacks
#3This is an attack on a strawman.
What the Sequoia presentation says is: Economic conditions vary. In bad times you can't take as much risk. Bad times are here. Stop taking risks.
Though I don't endorse Sequoia's conclusions (I don't know how bad the economy will get, or how long it will stay that way), the chain of reasoning is just common sense. It doesn't make them hypocrites, or imply that what they had been telling startups before was wrong.
Re: Sequoia Capital: Armchair quarterbacks
#4The sub heading of the article more accurately describes their point about Sequoia as "Monday morning quaterbacks.
Armchair quarterbacks would mean that Sequoia is not directly involved in the industry and is chiming in on something they know nothing about (not speaking of something with the benefit of hindsight like the term "monday morning" confers).
Re: Sequoia Capital: Armchair quarterbacks
#5This seems like blatant linkbaiting from 37signals, and frankly I think it's childish. They know quite well (or at least they should) that the reason some companies get a huge cash injection from investors is to grow fast and grab marketshare. This costs a lot of money. It's a risky strategy but if it works it pays off bigtime. The get fast big strategy is obviously not for 37signals, but I'm sure they are aware that…
i've followed the SvN blog for years, and i've never seen linkbaiting (contrary to TechCrunch or other TC-style blogs)
Re: Sequoia Capital: Armchair quarterbacks
#6This seems like blatant linkbaiting from 37signals, and frankly I think it's childish. They know quite well (or at least they should) that the reason some companies get a huge cash injection from investors is to grow fast and grab marketshare. This costs a lot of money. It's a risky strategy but if it works it pays off bigtime. The get fast big strategy is obviously not for 37signals, but I'm sure they are aware that…
i've followed the SvN blog for years, and i've never seen linkbaiting (contrary to TechCrunch or other TC-style blogs)
Then you haven't followed very closely.
Re: Sequoia Capital: Armchair quarterbacks
#7Personally, I like what 37s has to say. It's the same thing people here (myself included) have said to all these "How to survive in hard times" articles (and that is "why do sound business principles only count in hard times?").
I'm glad someone with a bigger voice is saying this.
Yes, I understand "get big fast, grab market share" MO–but I guarantee they have portfolio companies that have burned a lot of money with nothing to show for it (revenue or market share).
Yes, Sequoia had to say this given their current situation. But, what's wrong with having an opposing voice to "raise vc/ramp up fast/ignore revenue for now" mentality? It's good to give entrepreneurs both sides of the coin.
Re: Sequoia Capital: Armchair quarterbacks
#8Sequoia Capital are a bunch of idiots.
Re: Sequoia Capital: Armchair quarterbacks
#9This is an attack on a strawman. What the Sequoia presentation says is: Economic conditions vary. In bad times you can't take as much risk. Bad times are here. Stop taking risks. Though I don't endorse Sequoia's conclusions (I don't know how bad the economy will get, or how long it will stay that way), the chain of reasoning is just common sense. It doesn't make them hypocrites, or imply that what they had been telli…
It's not an attack on a straw man. It's an attack on Sequoia's logic and its presumptions -- a valid attack, if you ask me. Except for Sequoia's recommendation for stasis (bad advice in any conditions), all of its suggestions are how you run a startup. If you aren't doing everything that the deck suggests, your startup probably isn't going to do well. As a startup, you should not be taking stupid risks. Smart risks: you need those, even in "bad" times.
If a startup can only survive in "good times" (still trying to figure out what that means, given the past eight years), then it probably shouldn't have existed to begin with.
Google, while a startup, added value to the universe and soon enough figured out how to take monetary advantage of that value. Google busted out of the dotbomb era like a bat out of hell.
Pets.com did not. Turns out the world needed a better way to find information/ideas/people, but not a "better" way to order dog food.
Re: Sequoia Capital: Armchair quarterbacks
#10This is an attack on a strawman. What the Sequoia presentation says is: Economic conditions vary. In bad times you can't take as much risk. Bad times are here. Stop taking risks. Though I don't endorse Sequoia's conclusions (I don't know how bad the economy will get, or how long it will stay that way), the chain of reasoning is just common sense. It doesn't make them hypocrites, or imply that what they had been telli…
It's not an attack on a straw man. It's an attack on Sequoia's logic and its presumptions -- a valid attack, if you ask me. Except for Sequoia's recommendation for stasis (bad advice in any conditions), all of its suggestions are how you run a startup . If you aren't doing everything that the deck suggests, your startup probably isn't going to do well. As a startup, you should not be taking stupid risks. Smart risks:…
[deleted]