10 ms·
I have to suspect that B is less fact than it is VC posturing. To my knowledge, a partner who only invested once or twice per year would soon lose his position.
by sabat 18y ago
I have to suspect that B is less fact than it is VC posturing. To my knowledge, a partner who only invested once or twice per year would soon lose his position. His job is to make money for the firm, and if he's not investing very much, he's not going to make money.
While I have no reason to doubt the indubitable PG, I have a feeling that Mr. Hornik is fibbing or is in a unique position to under-deliver for August Capital.
Let's put it this way: if very very few startups ever get funding, how do you explain Podshow and Meebo getting so much money with such unproven/unreliable revenue models? Don't tell me it was "pure chance". I think it is/was because VC is more readily available than Mr. Hornik's self-important attitude would imply.
- netcan 18y agoI don't know much about VC structures. How much they need to invest per year. How many partners, etc. But I assume that even if the numbers are off, the principle stands: They invest in few companies per year, so they need to invest large amounts. Maybe VCs (or the ones currently around) don't need to be investing in software startups any more. The classic model is that VCs fund risky industries that need a lot of startup cash (like sailing to India to buy spices). If that's not software anymore, maybe they need to get out. At least out of some software areas. Actually, I was surprised at the numbers he was talking about: 50k, 200k..