On your second point -- namely why does Juicero get funded and qualitative innovation doesn't -- I think it comes down to the still very real weight given to su

On your second point -- namely why does Juicero get funded and qualitative innovation doesn't -- I think it comes down to the still very real weight given to subjective alpha-primate-ness in business decision making. On two occasions I've had VC types (in one case post-beer) tell me they almost never fund anyone who doesn't have (paraphrasing) "presence" or "a reality distortion field" etc. I would have assumed it to be subconscious but these comments convinced me that it's a conscious explicit bias in at least some cases. This is a really outstanding book on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet:_The_Power_of_Introverts_in_a_World_That_Can%27t_Stop_Talking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet:_The_Power_of_Introverts... Put enough weaponized extroversion and alpha primate signaling behind it and you can get people to invest in millions in absolute BS. You can also over-inflate the value of something real to stratospheric degrees. See also: Uber. On the other hand if you have an underspoken introvert try to sell something outstanding, the majority of businesspeople will not pay attention. I have seen a case where a meek soft-spoken woman tried to pitch a mobile startup with outstanding user base growth, revenue, and cash efficiency numbers and got yawns. She wasn't asking for much. This was seed stage stuff and these were crazy amazing numbers. In the same pitch fest the investor panel perked up for a number of vapid pre-revenue proposals backed by more extroverted alpha personalities. I don't think it was just sexism since one of these was also a woman. (I suspect some sexism is actually this bias since it may be tougher for women to play the alpha primate card with men.) Most innovators ("artists") are more on the introvert end of the spectrum. Edit: this may be rational for funding things that rely heavily on in-person salesmanship, but it's applied broadly. Edit #2: another reason this may be rational for VCs is that they are only thinking about their cash-out. They may be looking for people who can pump the value of the company's stock to later investors more than people who can actually deliver lasting value. The company's product is its stock, not its product.