5 ms·

I disagree with the article. Basically what it's implying is that we should stop giving small amounts of funding to many talented people and, instead, give larg

I disagree with the article. Basically what it's implying is that we should stop giving small amounts of funding to many talented people and, instead, give large amounts of funding to few geniuses. The problem with this is that you can't know who is a genius before you invest. Was Steve Jobs obviously a "Genius" before he started Apple? No. Even after running Apple for a few years, he was fired because some important people saw him as incompetent (I.e. Not a genius). It took many years before he was able to prove himself. If investors started spending more on fewer people, it would mean that fewer "geniuses" would be discovered. If anything, I think Silicon Valley is too much like Florence; VCs are pouring billions into unicorns headed by so called "geniuses" while depraving unknown geniuses the ability to prove themselves on the market. Also, I think during he renaissance, very smart/talented people would have stood out from the crowd. If you go to SV, smart people are everywhere, it's even harder to identify genius in such an environment.

bcheung 11y ago
The article makes many points but I agree with what you say as well. Hopefully with the SEC relaxing the crowdfunding rules funding will become more spread out.
jessriedel 11y ago
If you can't identify the geniuses but you think that they (whoever they are) need lots of free time to succeed, you can just select people randomly.
- jondubois 11y ago
  Yes, I think it would work better that way. Just think of Uber; they raised $8 billion. With that kind of money, we could have funded 100K small startups for 1 year ($80K each). That's a lot of startups! I think funding fewer companies with more money is a good short-term strategy (in terms of buying competitive advantage) but not good in the long-run. I don't think Uber will be able to maintain a monopoly once the hype dies down. Once the hype has faded, competitors will come up and eat into Uber's business - For example, Google, Tesla and Apple might all have their own dedicated networks of self-driving cars to drive people around and Uber may become redundant. Uber's valuation would deflate and most of those $8 billion would have been wasted.
  - marincounty 11y ago
    I wonder everyday why they don't have more competition. I won't be back, and don't need a long lecture, but it just seems like a service begging for competition? I think they are missing a large demographic. There are people like myself, who don't care about style, or the newness of a vechicle. I just want to get there, at a reasonable price. Yes, safety is important, but older cars are safe if maintained. Hell, drive me anywhere in a old collector's car--with tons of metal? Rent a Wreck was a popular business in the stone ages. People just needed cheap transportation. I honestly don't care about what a car looks like. I'm not marrying it.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      I suspect with UberX you've already reached the point where you're not going to cut costs much by going any further downscale. There are things to criticize about Uber but "their prices are high because the cars are too nice" probably isn't one of them. Rent a Wreck is still around and I know people who use them on a regular basis.

bcheung 11y ago

The article makes many points but I agree with what you say as well. Hopefully with the SEC relaxing the crowdfunding rules funding will become more spread out.

jessriedel 11y ago

If you can't identify the geniuses but you think that they (whoever they are) need lots of free time to succeed, you can just select people randomly.

jondubois 11y ago
Yes, I think it would work better that way. Just think of Uber; they raised $8 billion. With that kind of money, we could have funded 100K small startups for 1 year ($80K each). That's a lot of startups! I think funding fewer companies with more money is a good short-term strategy (in terms of buying competitive advantage) but not good in the long-run. I don't think Uber will be able to maintain a monopoly once the hype dies down. Once the hype has faded, competitors will come up and eat into Uber's business - For example, Google, Tesla and Apple might all have their own dedicated networks of self-driving cars to drive people around and Uber may become redundant. Uber's valuation would deflate and most of those $8 billion would have been wasted.
- marincounty 11y ago
  I wonder everyday why they don't have more competition. I won't be back, and don't need a long lecture, but it just seems like a service begging for competition? I think they are missing a large demographic. There are people like myself, who don't care about style, or the newness of a vechicle. I just want to get there, at a reasonable price. Yes, safety is important, but older cars are safe if maintained. Hell, drive me anywhere in a old collector's car--with tons of metal? Rent a Wreck was a popular business in the stone ages. People just needed cheap transportation. I honestly don't care about what a car looks like. I'm not marrying it.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    I suspect with UberX you've already reached the point where you're not going to cut costs much by going any further downscale. There are things to criticize about Uber but "their prices are high because the cars are too nice" probably isn't one of them. Rent a Wreck is still around and I know people who use them on a regular basis.