This guy clearly does not understand investing or what it means to be a founder. There are three things that matter, the rest is noise: 1) Is there a big marke

This guy clearly does not understand investing or what it means to be a founder. There are three things that matter, the rest is noise: 1) Is there a big market? 2) Is the founding team GREAT? 3) Don't invest too late. That's it. Invest in great people pursuing big opportunities. Trust & help them to be smart enough to figure the rest out. More categories would simply distract. Most VCs invest in ideas with meaningless total addressable markets ALL the time. They limit their upside even if everything goes perfectly. They invest in subpar teams with no real product or design talent. Most VCs would do better sticking to above. Chris Dixon said wrote a blog post, which I wholeheartedly agree, where a lot of amazing innovation first looks like a toy. Many of the biggest companies are created by a founder realizing new tech X can impact a lot of value-added activities A,B,C before everybody else realizes the same thing. If the VC is twiddling thumbs looking for external validation beyond the founder, by definition they're missing the train. Things are "obvious" only in hindsight. Let's take building messaging apps. Everyone now says it was so obvious - but it wasn't to Google, Inc. They wasted time building Google+ while founders were building WhatsApp, Instagram, SnapChat, etc. Containers are another example. Docker folks realized certain properties of the linux kernel can be utilized to great effect to solve a meaningful problem. Imagine the VC who waited another year to de-risk.