Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)
paulgraham.com
Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)
1–10 of 169 posts
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)
#2> I've tried to explain this to VC firms. Instead of making one $2 million investment, make five $400k investments. Would that mean sitting on too many boards? Don't sit on their boards. Would that mean too much due diligence? Do less. If you're investing at a tenth the valuation, you only have to be a tenth as sure.
This turned out to be absolutely right, and the That said with the benefit of more hindsight I think the reason there are no more Googles is that FAANG has a stronghold on the largest technology markets.
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)
#3> I've tried to explain this to VC firms. Instead of making one $2 million investment, make five $400k investments. Would that mean sitting on too many boards? Don't sit on their boards. Would that mean too much due diligence? Do less. If you're investing at a tenth the valuation, you only have to be a tenth as sure. This turned out to be absolutely right, and the That said with the benefit of more hindsight I think…
Well, yes, but do they have that stronghold on the future of technology markets? I'm less convinced of that.
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)
#4> I've tried to explain this to VC firms. Instead of making one $2 million investment, make five $400k investments. Would that mean sitting on too many boards? Don't sit on their boards. Would that mean too much due diligence? Do less. If you're investing at a tenth the valuation, you only have to be a tenth as sure. This turned out to be absolutely right, and the That said with the benefit of more hindsight I think…
> That said with the benefit of more hindsight I think the reason there are no more Googles is that FAANG has a stronghold on the largest technology markets.
And the FAANGs are willing to pay very large amounts of cash to acquire promising startups.
EDIT: Also why is it that the majority of the large tech companies are essentially marketplaces? Is there really that much friction in traditional markets (physical goods, movies, books, ads[!], apps) to fund their spectacular rise?
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)
#5> I've tried to explain this to VC firms. Instead of making one $2 million investment, make five $400k investments. Would that mean sitting on too many boards? Don't sit on their boards. Would that mean too much due diligence? Do less. If you're investing at a tenth the valuation, you only have to be a tenth as sure. This turned out to be absolutely right, and the That said with the benefit of more hindsight I think…
They also have a stronghold on a lot of the talent that would make the next big thing.
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)
#6> I've tried to explain this to VC firms. Instead of making one $2 million investment, make five $400k investments. Would that mean sitting on too many boards? Don't sit on their boards. Would that mean too much due diligence? Do less. If you're investing at a tenth the valuation, you only have to be a tenth as sure. This turned out to be absolutely right, and the That said with the benefit of more hindsight I think…
Well, yes, but do they have that stronghold on the future of technology markets? I'm less convinced of that.
Super interesting question. I don't know.
I suspect they will dominate all the largest technology markets for the long run, unless the government intervenes. I might be wrong.
They may not dominate the future of "technology markets", though, if the sum of the long tail dominates. Right now FAANG is 42% of the NASDAQ Composite 100.
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)
#7This article shows its age with the quote:
> The median startup coming out of Y Combinator wants to raise $250-500k.
I think raising comparatively small amounts stokes a kind of vigour you can't get when sitting on a few million in cash. I wonder how this dynamic has shifted the outcome of Y Combinator alumni companies. Perhaps we would have more Googles if this trend of raising less had persisted.
Money breeding laziness is also what killed ICOs. Naive teams with revolutionary ideas (which may have changed the world in startup form) raised tens of millions of dollars. This money removed the need for groundedness and scrappiness in the development process. As a result, a lot of value and time was squandered on tech that hasn't panned out.
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)
#8Be good to stick the (2008) in the title, even if many here recognise the link.
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)
#9Why There Aren't More Googles?
flippant, sarcastic response: because google.
actual response: I whole heartedly agree. when a founder/initial investor team turns down even a (mildly though truly) lucrative offer, it’s because they very strongly believe that they would be selling themselves short. if they turn down an (extremely) lucrative offer, even more so. Most people get into the game for money, ego, admiration and power. So, if someone is turning down any of these, it’s either because they are a ‘true believer,’ in which case, bet on them, or it’s because they imminently expect all or most of the others, in which case, bet, the f, on them.
Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)
#10Be good to stick the (2008) in the title, even if many here recognise the link.
A modern-day "Why There Aren't More (Or Fewer) $1.2T Companies" might be a good article too.