5 ms·

> It's wholly possible that taking the idea from a concept to a working product is just so hard that they don't want to show it off before it's 'ready'. So if

by mbesto 10y ago

> It's wholly possible that taking the idea from a concept to a working product is just so hard that they don't want to show it off before it's 'ready'. So if it's not 'ready', then what do GV investors know/see about the product that an average person couldn't see? In other words, if the product is in a half state, then what confidence do the investors have the team will get it to the a full state. It's like saying "invest in my rocket company that is going to take people to another solar system...and here's the demo of a rocket going to the stratosphere". No one has been able to send a rocket to another solar system but a plethora of organizations have done so to the stratosphere, so what additional insight does one have that makes me so confident that this is the team to get us to another solar system?

onion2k 10y ago
So if it's not 'ready', then what do GV investors know/see about the product that an average person couldn't see? Google Ventures isn't Kickstarter. The people who work for GV do a lot of research before investing. They'll be able to extrapolate from the available data. Average people are very bad at extrapolation. In other words, if the product is in a half state, then what confidence do the investors have the team will get it to the a full state. They'll have talked to the founders, and trusted that they can do it, and, GV will understand that if they're wrong they will lose a lot of money. They don't have confidence. If Magic Leap was something you could be confident about then Magic Leap's founders would have raised debt rather than equity, and kept all the rewards for themselves. Confidence implies a lack of risk. GV has belief in the Magic Leap team, but that doesn't mean there isn't a huge risk in putting money in.
- mbesto 10y ago
  > The people who work for GV do a lot of research before investing. Just out of curiosity, do you know this as a fact or is it speculation based on your assumption of the prestige of individuals there? > Average people are very bad at extrapolation. I do technology due diligence for a living. I work with firms like GV and am always surprised by the general lack of researching conducted (look at DJF and Theranos as a great example where seemingly un-average people didn't extrapolate correctly) > They'll have talked to the founders, and trusted that they can do it, and, GV will understand that if they're wrong they will lose a lot of money. > GV has belief in the Magic Leap team, but that doesn't mean there isn't a huge risk in putting money in. That's precisely my point. What specific data points do they (GV) have, that, as the GP points out, leads them to believe this will work. Data which if publicly available would lead techies like you and I to lead the same conclusion. Further, there is a large assumption that this same data/info wouldn't appear to materially change the course of the company's success. Oculus launch a beta early..why does that need to be the case for them? People are right to feel skeptical - the publicly available data points don't add up.
  - mikeryan 10y ago
    I'm not sure Theranos is a great example for lack of due diligence. Most SV money stayed out of Theranos despite the hype because they couldn't get straight answers out of them on their tech. Obviously there were other investors jumping on board without sufficient due diligence but it wasn't the normal crop of SV VC. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/opinion/dont-blame-silicon-valley-for-theranos.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/opinion/dont-blame-silicon...
  - Fricken 10y ago
    Tim Draper of DFJ invested in Theranos very early on. His parents were neighbours with Elizabeth Holmes when she was a kid, which kind of explains why they invested in Theranos. No other reputable VC firm would touch Theranos, and Holmes had paid several visits to GV and was turned down each time. GVs bigger bets are on Uber, which turned out well, Magic Leap, and Carbon, a snazzy 3d printing startup which appears to be a solid company with some really innovative tech.
    - mbesto 10y ago
      > The company raised $32.36 million of Series C...Draper Fisher Jurvetson...on November 15, 2006, > The company raised $45 million of Series C1 venture funding out of a planned $100 million from Draper Fisher Jurvetson on July 8, 2010, putting the pre-money valuation at $1.1 billion. > The company raised an estimated $573 million of Series C2 venture funding from The Lucas Venture Group (Menlo Park), Draper Associates (San Mateo), Partner Fund Management (SF) and Sandbox Industries (Chicago) in March 2015, putting the pre-money valuation at $8.4 billion. BlueCross BlueShield Venture Partners also participated in this round.
flylib 10y ago
GV isn't an investor in Magic Leap, Google the company is (Sundar Pichai Google's CEO took a board seat)

by mbesto 10y ago

onion2k 10y ago

So if it's not 'ready', then what do GV investors know/see about the product that an average person couldn't see? Google Ventures isn't Kickstarter. The people who work for GV do a lot of research before investing. They'll be able to extrapolate from the available data. Average people are very bad at extrapolation. In other words, if the product is in a half state, then what confidence do the investors have the team will get it to the a full state. They'll have talked to the founders, and trusted that they can do it, and, GV will understand that if they're wrong they will lose a lot of money. They don't have confidence. If Magic Leap was something you could be confident about then Magic Leap's founders would have raised debt rather than equity, and kept all the rewards for themselves. Confidence implies a lack of risk. GV has belief in the Magic Leap team, but that doesn't mean there isn't a huge risk in putting money in.

mbesto 10y ago
> The people who work for GV do a lot of research before investing. Just out of curiosity, do you know this as a fact or is it speculation based on your assumption of the prestige of individuals there? > Average people are very bad at extrapolation. I do technology due diligence for a living. I work with firms like GV and am always surprised by the general lack of researching conducted (look at DJF and Theranos as a great example where seemingly un-average people didn't extrapolate correctly) > They'll have talked to the founders, and trusted that they can do it, and, GV will understand that if they're wrong they will lose a lot of money. > GV has belief in the Magic Leap team, but that doesn't mean there isn't a huge risk in putting money in. That's precisely my point. What specific data points do they (GV) have, that, as the GP points out, leads them to believe this will work. Data which if publicly available would lead techies like you and I to lead the same conclusion. Further, there is a large assumption that this same data/info wouldn't appear to materially change the course of the company's success. Oculus launch a beta early..why does that need to be the case for them? People are right to feel skeptical - the publicly available data points don't add up.
- mikeryan 10y ago
  I'm not sure Theranos is a great example for lack of due diligence. Most SV money stayed out of Theranos despite the hype because they couldn't get straight answers out of them on their tech. Obviously there were other investors jumping on board without sufficient due diligence but it wasn't the normal crop of SV VC. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/opinion/dont-blame-silicon-valley-for-theranos.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/opinion/dont-blame-silicon...
- Fricken 10y ago
  Tim Draper of DFJ invested in Theranos very early on. His parents were neighbours with Elizabeth Holmes when she was a kid, which kind of explains why they invested in Theranos. No other reputable VC firm would touch Theranos, and Holmes had paid several visits to GV and was turned down each time. GVs bigger bets are on Uber, which turned out well, Magic Leap, and Carbon, a snazzy 3d printing startup which appears to be a solid company with some really innovative tech.
  - mbesto 10y ago
    > The company raised $32.36 million of Series C...Draper Fisher Jurvetson...on November 15, 2006, > The company raised $45 million of Series C1 venture funding out of a planned $100 million from Draper Fisher Jurvetson on July 8, 2010, putting the pre-money valuation at $1.1 billion. > The company raised an estimated $573 million of Series C2 venture funding from The Lucas Venture Group (Menlo Park), Draper Associates (San Mateo), Partner Fund Management (SF) and Sandbox Industries (Chicago) in March 2015, putting the pre-money valuation at $8.4 billion. BlueCross BlueShield Venture Partners also participated in this round.

flylib 10y ago

GV isn't an investor in Magic Leap, Google the company is (Sundar Pichai Google's CEO took a board seat)