3 ms·

Having dealt with VCs, I'm kind of confused by this comment. In my experience, they do not delve deeply into the tech. I'm guessing this is because most of thei

by woah 5y ago

Having dealt with VCs, I'm kind of confused by this comment. In my experience, they do not delve deeply into the tech. I'm guessing this is because most of their portfolio companies fail for non-technical reasons. They mostly assume that if you're pitching it, you can build it. To me it sounds like they were not convinced that the product would have any selling points over existing tech. Would this type of device save any money? Another thing that may have happened is that perhaps the pitch was heavily focused on the tech and it made their eyes glaze over.

sangnoir 5y ago
VCs tend to have an easier time funding already-validated ideas: having an established competitor, or seeing other VCs fund similar companies. It's lazy, but they can afford to be lazy - if they miss their chance on your revolutionary tech and you somehow succeed, they'll fund the next startup that copies you. The other day I saw a commenter who worked at a wind power startup that failed to get subsequent funding because Alphabet shutdown Makani, and their take away was the idea no longer seemed viable.
gumby 5y ago
> In my experience, they do not delve deeply into the tech. I suppose it depends on how deep the technology is. If you’re building a site using react, fine. If you’re developing a new semiconductor process or new pharmaceutical agent, they’ll want more info. My companies have all been of the latter sort, and so had serious technical DD. I’ve also done deep dive like that on behalf of investors.
- woah 5y ago
  It sounds like their tech was somewhere in between these two extremes. I would expect that some engineers with relevant experience in networking and programmable logic could get it done. It's also not particularly novel- lots of networking stuff is offloaded to custom chips. My guess is that they didn't make a good business case for it, in which case I would have to dispute OP's idea that "progress was delayed".

by woah 5y ago

sangnoir 5y ago

VCs tend to have an easier time funding already-validated ideas: having an established competitor, or seeing other VCs fund similar companies. It's lazy, but they can afford to be lazy - if they miss their chance on your revolutionary tech and you somehow succeed, they'll fund the next startup that copies you. The other day I saw a commenter who worked at a wind power startup that failed to get subsequent funding because Alphabet shutdown Makani, and their take away was the idea no longer seemed viable.

gumby 5y ago

> In my experience, they do not delve deeply into the tech. I suppose it depends on how deep the technology is. If you’re building a site using react, fine. If you’re developing a new semiconductor process or new pharmaceutical agent, they’ll want more info. My companies have all been of the latter sort, and so had serious technical DD. I’ve also done deep dive like that on behalf of investors.

woah 5y ago
It sounds like their tech was somewhere in between these two extremes. I would expect that some engineers with relevant experience in networking and programmable logic could get it done. It's also not particularly novel- lots of networking stuff is offloaded to custom chips. My guess is that they didn't make a good business case for it, in which case I would have to dispute OP's idea that "progress was delayed".