5 ms·

Why? If a product is good and investors are convinced it has a market, they'll invest. Otherwise I'll need to move on to something more compelling. That's no r

Why? If a product is good and investors are convinced it has a market, they'll invest. Otherwise I'll need to move on to something more compelling. That's no reason not to try. Insisting on an identified market before starting on something would eradicate a whole lot of University research.

mixmax 19y ago
"Why?" Because a great product is not the same thing as a great company. Investors don't invest in a good product, they invest in great people. Look at any VC or angel webpage and you'll see what I mean. Here is a quote from YC: "The people in your group are what matter most to us" And btw. University research is for finding out how the world works, business is about making money. There is a big difference between the two.
- chaostheory 19y ago
  wouldn't it be safe to assume that great people make great products?
  - mixmax 19y ago
    Well, great product people make great products. But if they don't have great marketing people nobody will know.
    - chaostheory 19y ago
      from what I gather you seem to be saying is that great product people aren't as great as great marketers / biz people and that great product ppl/devs can't simultaneously have great marketing and biz skills too
      - mixmax 19y ago
        What I'm saying is that we should all try to get along and try to respect each others skills. That's all :-)
        aswanson 19y ago
        Nothing wrong with that.
- aswanson 19y ago
  Investors don't invest in a good product, they invest in great people How are they quantifying great people if they are new? School? GPA? Fraternity? What is this VC metric based upon? How can you not judge a founder based upon the product of their efforts if it is not good?
run4yourlives 19y ago
>If a product is good and investors are convinced it has a market, they'll invest. The business world is littered with great products with no markets. And, as dot bomb showed us, investors don't have a clue. My advice would be to arm yourself with market knowledge, and not rely on investors. >Insisting on an identified market before starting on something would eradicate a whole lot of University research. That's why a whole lot of University research gets grants from taxpayers - nobody is willing to fork over any dough for most of it. Seriously, are you trolling?

mixmax 19y ago

"Why?" Because a great product is not the same thing as a great company. Investors don't invest in a good product, they invest in great people. Look at any VC or angel webpage and you'll see what I mean. Here is a quote from YC: "The people in your group are what matter most to us" And btw. University research is for finding out how the world works, business is about making money. There is a big difference between the two.

chaostheory 19y ago
wouldn't it be safe to assume that great people make great products?
- mixmax 19y ago
  Well, great product people make great products. But if they don't have great marketing people nobody will know.
  - chaostheory 19y ago
    from what I gather you seem to be saying is that great product people aren't as great as great marketers / biz people and that great product ppl/devs can't simultaneously have great marketing and biz skills too
    - mixmax 19y ago
      What I'm saying is that we should all try to get along and try to respect each others skills. That's all :-)
      - aswanson 19y ago
        Nothing wrong with that.
aswanson 19y ago
Investors don't invest in a good product, they invest in great people How are they quantifying great people if they are new? School? GPA? Fraternity? What is this VC metric based upon? How can you not judge a founder based upon the product of their efforts if it is not good?

run4yourlives 19y ago

>If a product is good and investors are convinced it has a market, they'll invest. The business world is littered with great products with no markets. And, as dot bomb showed us, investors don't have a clue. My advice would be to arm yourself with market knowledge, and not rely on investors. >Insisting on an identified market before starting on something would eradicate a whole lot of University research. That's why a whole lot of University research gets grants from taxpayers - nobody is willing to fork over any dough for most of it. Seriously, are you trolling?