4 ms·
This seems reasonable, except that the #1 rule of investing is that past performance does not guarantee future results. If the team is so great and VCs are inv
by il 16y ago
This seems reasonable, except that the #1 rule of investing is that past performance does not guarantee future results.
If the team is so great and VCs are investing in the team, then why is the UI/usability of Color so bad?
I think the reason startup people are so down on Color is that they believe that $41M distributed among many different startups would be better for the tech ecosystem/community as a whole, resulting in more innovation and progress than a single photo sharing app.
- pclark 16y agoI am not sure your opinion on the #1 rule of investing applies to Venture Capital considering the primary focus is on the team. Mind you, perhaps this is a reason as to why Venture Capital on the whole has been less than stellar at times. I believe what happened to Color is that they got tunnel vision on their ideal environment for their product, ad optimised around that - rather than the initial user experience. Specifically, I mean they were using Color around dozens of other users, whereas most new users today use it in their bedroom miles from a second user - so a lot of the UI elements are confusing when no additional data is avaliable. People do make mistakes.
- rudiger 16y agoI highly doubt that real "startup people" are that socialist (ie. we should distribute Seqouia et al.'s $41M among many 2-3 person startups vs. a single team of ~30 people).
- alphaoverlord 16y ago> $41M distributed among many different startups would be better for the tech ecosystem/community as a whole In what ways? How would that be true? It's a free market - you get what you can get. You can argue fb doesn't deserve its valuation either, but there doesn't seem to be same amount of disbelief and schadenfreude-seeking.