4 ms·

"I don't think Mark Zuckerberg could have sat a VC down and said, this is my idea, (or this is the idea I stole from the Winkelvoss brothers or whatever) please

"I don't think Mark Zuckerberg could have sat a VC down and said, this is my idea, (or this is the idea I stole from the Winkelvoss brothers or whatever) please invest in me." Well, this is exactly what he did when he got money off Peter Thiel, isn't it? If someone can't either explain your vision or at least mock up a tangible version of it that shows what they are trying to do, then how can they expect to create the product in reality. Sure, Facebook may not have made sense until it existed in some form, nor friendfeed, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have a good elevator pitch, the pitch is often showing off part of the product, not just an idea, which by itself is largely worthless. Most VCs don't fund just ideas, there has to be at least some basic implementation already.

demandred 18y ago
Not exactly. He already had lots of traction. I think the author's supposing that Zuck went to a VC before FB took off like crazy. Sure, Facebook may not have made sense until it existed in some form, nor friendfeed, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have a good elevator pitch, the pitch is often showing off part of the product, not just an idea, which by itself is largely worthless. Most VCs don't fund just ideas, there has to be at least some basic implementation already. What is this point talking to? I don't think it addresses anything in the post, and I think you might have read it incorrectly. The author's arguing that elevator pitches don't do justice for some products; that a VC essentially won't be able to understand/grasp the power of a product until s/he sits down and uses it, a la the Nintendo Wii or the iPhone.
- jamiequint 18y ago
  Post: some products don't have a elevator pitch that can describe them completely and accurately, you need the experience to fully understand the product. Me: The nature of the VC game is funding unproven things. If the experience is the differentiator than that is what is unproven and in the risk lies the reward. Basically, if the product. This argument may seem tangential, but I think its important. Innovating an experience is the same as innovating a technology, in the beginning is may not be as explainable (or the market size may not be known) because it hasn't yet been experienced.

demandred 18y ago

Not exactly. He already had lots of traction. I think the author's supposing that Zuck went to a VC before FB took off like crazy. Sure, Facebook may not have made sense until it existed in some form, nor friendfeed, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have a good elevator pitch, the pitch is often showing off part of the product, not just an idea, which by itself is largely worthless. Most VCs don't fund just ideas, there has to be at least some basic implementation already. What is this point talking to? I don't think it addresses anything in the post, and I think you might have read it incorrectly. The author's arguing that elevator pitches don't do justice for some products; that a VC essentially won't be able to understand/grasp the power of a product until s/he sits down and uses it, a la the Nintendo Wii or the iPhone.

jamiequint 18y ago
Post: some products don't have a elevator pitch that can describe them completely and accurately, you need the experience to fully understand the product. Me: The nature of the VC game is funding unproven things. If the experience is the differentiator than that is what is unproven and in the risk lies the reward. Basically, if the product. This argument may seem tangential, but I think its important. Innovating an experience is the same as innovating a technology, in the beginning is may not be as explainable (or the market size may not be known) because it hasn't yet been experienced.