4 ms·

How about funding where founders (3) are 1. understands/responsible for design. 2. understands/responsible for technology development. 3. understands/respons

How about funding where founders (3) are 1. understands/responsible for design. 2. understands/responsible for technology development. 3. understands/responsible for business development. Edit - I personally do not agree to have artificial requirements of "one founder must be designer" or such sorts (including the above mentioned) for creating innovating/successful startups.

newmediaclay 16y ago
Totally agree. Some of the most influential "design" companies of the past decades weren't actually started by designers. Apple, Mint, etc. are renowned for their beauty, elegance, and design foresight, but that's just because their leaders had great taste not actual design skills.
GrooveStomp 16y ago
I also agree with this. Why not have requirements like "One founder must be 6'2" tall"? Okay, it's not exactly the same, but I think the analogy is somewhat reasonable. There are many skills required in order to start a successful business, and I question whether design skills are anywhere in there. I think having a requirement that a founder for a design business must have some design experience (either formal or not) is a reasonable thing. It also occurs to me now that a "designer" could mean just about anything. A game designer to found a game company? That sounds good. A hardware designer to found a new hardware-oriented technology firm? Also good. A graphic designer to found a graphic design studio? Yeah, that sounds great too!
alsomike 16y ago
Could you explain the difference between "understands design" and being a designer?
- phlux 16y ago
  I like the color green.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
kwis 16y ago
If you target everybody, you target nobody. They're segmenting a crowded market (on both the investor and entrepreneur sides of the market), investing in founders they understand, and I wish them luck with their new niche. Nordstrom's doesn't sell 2x4s. Lowes doesn't sell evening gowns. Non-designer founders don't launch from The Designer Fund. It'll be fun to see how this hypothesis works in practice.

newmediaclay 16y ago

Totally agree. Some of the most influential "design" companies of the past decades weren't actually started by designers. Apple, Mint, etc. are renowned for their beauty, elegance, and design foresight, but that's just because their leaders had great taste not actual design skills.

GrooveStomp 16y ago

I also agree with this. Why not have requirements like "One founder must be 6'2" tall"? Okay, it's not exactly the same, but I think the analogy is somewhat reasonable. There are many skills required in order to start a successful business, and I question whether design skills are anywhere in there. I think having a requirement that a founder for a design business must have some design experience (either formal or not) is a reasonable thing. It also occurs to me now that a "designer" could mean just about anything. A game designer to found a game company? That sounds good. A hardware designer to found a new hardware-oriented technology firm? Also good. A graphic designer to found a graphic design studio? Yeah, that sounds great too!

alsomike 16y ago

Could you explain the difference between "understands design" and being a designer?

phlux 16y ago
I like the color green.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

kwis 16y ago

If you target everybody, you target nobody. They're segmenting a crowded market (on both the investor and entrepreneur sides of the market), investing in founders they understand, and I wish them luck with their new niche. Nordstrom's doesn't sell 2x4s. Lowes doesn't sell evening gowns. Non-designer founders don't launch from The Designer Fund. It'll be fun to see how this hypothesis works in practice.