4 ms·

> Everybody focuses on patents and the tech, yet tech matters less and less. Then why is he talking about what he looks for in Tech Startups? It doesn't seem t

> Everybody focuses on patents and the tech, yet tech matters less and less. Then why is he talking about what he looks for in Tech Startups? It doesn't seem that he's looking for Tech Startups at all. Plenty of other kinds of startups than tech startups.

spraak 9y ago
I don't think he means it doesn't matter at all. I think he means that the people who carry out the tech are worth a lot of discrimination. I.e. that the same technology is different based on who's pushing it.
comstock 9y ago
Tech, as used by investors no longer really means technology. It means a website essentially. It would rarely (in my experience) even encompass hardware. Certainly nothing requiring novel basic technology (science based startups). I don’t know why terminology is used like this. Essentially it’s like saying mail order catalogs are technology companies because they take advantage of advances in printing, telecommunications etc. I guess it’s because the process of building websites is still messy, and somewhat easy to get wrong.
- CalChris 9y ago
  He definitely used the word patents. So I really think he means new technology when he says tech rather than websites, deployment, logistics, ....
  - comstock 9y ago
    Well, he uses the word patents in a context which suggests he doesn’t care much about patents... The examples cited in the article are mostly websites. And I think (given the title of the article) he would describe himself as a tech investor. In any case, what investors say isn’t as important as what they do. In my experience they often say they are interested in Biotech, Science based startups, or hardware. The reality is they rarely invest, and when they do, they invest in very conversative plays (aside from the occasional misguided Theranos type play). The reality is in general tech to then means “some kind of website where I understand the engagement metrics” most of the time.
- tootie 9y ago
  I think "digital" is more accurate than "tech" now. And even then it's not always accurate. Is Uber a tech company or a taxi company? Is AirBnB tech or hospitality? Very few of the companies we call "tech startups" are actually producing tech as an output. More like they are solving technical challenges to increase efficiency or create market niches in traditional industries.
racer-v 9y ago
Maybe it's just easier to predict which people are going to be successful than which technologies.
thisisit 9y ago
I might be way off-base here but I think he means tech being the core of a startup. An example might be one of the big unicorn idea - ride sharing. Here, implementation and people which matter. Differentiating based on tech is moot.
- Alex3917 9y ago
  > Differentiating based on tech is moot. There were many ridesharing startups before Uber, but the reason why Uber became the market leader is that they were one of the first to leverage the iPhone.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    I think what the GP means is "tech" more in the sense that whether one uses a given stack or another is moot. In this context the iPhone is a high-tech medium and not an important "tech" detail.
richardknop 9y ago
Anything that has a mobile app or a website is nowadays considered a tech startup. And for most of these apps it doesn’t matter too much whether the backend is written in Java or Go or .NET.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Most of those apps could we written in Klik & Play, and it wouldn't make a difference. 90% of "tech" industry is the same old CRUDs run on the cloud, with only real difference made by the people drawing layouts in different colours. (For some reason though, each company has to have its own implementation of that same CRUD.)
  - richardknop 9y ago
    > (For some reason though, each company has to have its own implementation of that same CRUD.) I think it's for talent retention / hiring reasons. They want to give engineers something to tinker with and build up their own frameworks and libraries. It's what makes working on CRUD after CRUD at least little bit more exciting. Otherwise engineers would be bored to death and would leave to different companies.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      I suppose it works for the youngest. Up to the point they eventually notice they're doing the same thing at each new place, with the primary novelty being what problems did the company inflict itself this time. Personally, I am bored to death with more and more iterations of the very same. It makes enjoying the job harder (and it also makes finding an interesting job harder too).
  - MaxBarraclough 9y ago
    > For some reason though, each company has to have its own implementation of that same CRUD. Well, they're different CRUDs, no? Hacker News and Facebook both boil down to a database hooked up to a web-based front-end, but the glue in the middle isn't going to be the same.
mathattack 9y ago
He's hawking Sales and Marketing. Look at the layout of that friggin' page and tell me that tech (or at least design) doesn't matter!

spraak 9y ago

I don't think he means it doesn't matter at all. I think he means that the people who carry out the tech are worth a lot of discrimination. I.e. that the same technology is different based on who's pushing it.

comstock 9y ago

Tech, as used by investors no longer really means technology. It means a website essentially. It would rarely (in my experience) even encompass hardware. Certainly nothing requiring novel basic technology (science based startups). I don’t know why terminology is used like this. Essentially it’s like saying mail order catalogs are technology companies because they take advantage of advances in printing, telecommunications etc. I guess it’s because the process of building websites is still messy, and somewhat easy to get wrong.

CalChris 9y ago
He definitely used the word patents. So I really think he means new technology when he says tech rather than websites, deployment, logistics, ....
- comstock 9y ago
  Well, he uses the word patents in a context which suggests he doesn’t care much about patents... The examples cited in the article are mostly websites. And I think (given the title of the article) he would describe himself as a tech investor. In any case, what investors say isn’t as important as what they do. In my experience they often say they are interested in Biotech, Science based startups, or hardware. The reality is they rarely invest, and when they do, they invest in very conversative plays (aside from the occasional misguided Theranos type play). The reality is in general tech to then means “some kind of website where I understand the engagement metrics” most of the time.
tootie 9y ago
I think "digital" is more accurate than "tech" now. And even then it's not always accurate. Is Uber a tech company or a taxi company? Is AirBnB tech or hospitality? Very few of the companies we call "tech startups" are actually producing tech as an output. More like they are solving technical challenges to increase efficiency or create market niches in traditional industries.

racer-v 9y ago

Maybe it's just easier to predict which people are going to be successful than which technologies.

thisisit 9y ago

I might be way off-base here but I think he means tech being the core of a startup. An example might be one of the big unicorn idea - ride sharing. Here, implementation and people which matter. Differentiating based on tech is moot.

Alex3917 9y ago
> Differentiating based on tech is moot. There were many ridesharing startups before Uber, but the reason why Uber became the market leader is that they were one of the first to leverage the iPhone.
- sidlls 9y ago
  I think what the GP means is "tech" more in the sense that whether one uses a given stack or another is moot. In this context the iPhone is a high-tech medium and not an important "tech" detail.

richardknop 9y ago

Anything that has a mobile app or a website is nowadays considered a tech startup. And for most of these apps it doesn’t matter too much whether the backend is written in Java or Go or .NET.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Most of those apps could we written in Klik & Play, and it wouldn't make a difference. 90% of "tech" industry is the same old CRUDs run on the cloud, with only real difference made by the people drawing layouts in different colours. (For some reason though, each company has to have its own implementation of that same CRUD.)
- richardknop 9y ago
  > (For some reason though, each company has to have its own implementation of that same CRUD.) I think it's for talent retention / hiring reasons. They want to give engineers something to tinker with and build up their own frameworks and libraries. It's what makes working on CRUD after CRUD at least little bit more exciting. Otherwise engineers would be bored to death and would leave to different companies.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    I suppose it works for the youngest. Up to the point they eventually notice they're doing the same thing at each new place, with the primary novelty being what problems did the company inflict itself this time. Personally, I am bored to death with more and more iterations of the very same. It makes enjoying the job harder (and it also makes finding an interesting job harder too).
- MaxBarraclough 9y ago
  > For some reason though, each company has to have its own implementation of that same CRUD. Well, they're different CRUDs, no? Hacker News and Facebook both boil down to a database hooked up to a web-based front-end, but the glue in the middle isn't going to be the same.

mathattack 9y ago

He's hawking Sales and Marketing. Look at the layout of that friggin' page and tell me that tech (or at least design) doesn't matter!