3 ms·

I wasn't talking about what I or anyone works on personally; I was talking about Companies. Google is the exception, not the rule.

acgourley 18y ago
Statistically speaking, most startups ventured have a poor chance of being a Google, but must dollars earned have a good chance of being a Google's. Don't discount their type of business strategy just because it doesn't suit your personal risk preference.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  I'm trying to understand what you're saying. "but must dollars earned have a good chance of being a Google's" Are you saying that the few companies "make" the portfolio (i.e. the anomalies and hits carry the return) or? If so, I agree, but the hits aren't all run like Google. My personal risk preferences have nothing to do with this argument.
  - acgourley 18y ago
    Just to set things straight, you are suggesting companies shouldn't start like Google where they are focused on a technology that has no obvious way to make money (at the time). You agree the high growth long term strategy has its place, but claim companies should not just start down their runway before making sure there is even a profit to be made there. I was talking past you because in my mind I wasn't seeing a distinction between having a long term, high growth business and being unsure of how to monetize. While your stance is prudent, most of the greatest tech company success stories of this decade were from companies that didn't know (for certain) how to monetize, because they were so far into uncharted territory. And even though there are only a few of those companies, they seem to be earning most of the money between companies started in this decade. So being more focused on technology than profitability is a valid business strategy, as long as you have runway. That's what I'm saying, and what I think you disagree with.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      Thanks for putting everything in one paragraph. "So being more focused on technology than profitability is a valid business strategy, as long as you have runway." Yes, I agree with this. Which is why I don't really have a problem with companies like Twitter (you can debate the technical merits, but it's certainly different). They've kept their team lean and haven't taken gobs of money right away and all at once like some of these other startups My comments were more aimed at investors & companies that spend money just to spend money on either me-too ideas (e.g. many many ad networks, social networks) or overcapitalizing companies that aren't ready for it. They and their brethren aren't investing in the development of cutting edge technology at all, they're doing something because everyone else is.
DaniFong 18y ago
Why should the risk strategy of a company be any different from a personal risk strategy? If anything companies can afford to be riskier.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  In theory it shouldn't. That's why I try to be as risk neutral as possible and why I'm doing a startup. The problem with some of these over capitalized startups is they throw themselves in to risking seeking situations.

acgourley 18y ago

Statistically speaking, most startups ventured have a poor chance of being a Google, but must dollars earned have a good chance of being a Google's. Don't discount their type of business strategy just because it doesn't suit your personal risk preference.

fallentimes 18y ago
I'm trying to understand what you're saying. "but must dollars earned have a good chance of being a Google's" Are you saying that the few companies "make" the portfolio (i.e. the anomalies and hits carry the return) or? If so, I agree, but the hits aren't all run like Google. My personal risk preferences have nothing to do with this argument.
- acgourley 18y ago
  Just to set things straight, you are suggesting companies shouldn't start like Google where they are focused on a technology that has no obvious way to make money (at the time). You agree the high growth long term strategy has its place, but claim companies should not just start down their runway before making sure there is even a profit to be made there. I was talking past you because in my mind I wasn't seeing a distinction between having a long term, high growth business and being unsure of how to monetize. While your stance is prudent, most of the greatest tech company success stories of this decade were from companies that didn't know (for certain) how to monetize, because they were so far into uncharted territory. And even though there are only a few of those companies, they seem to be earning most of the money between companies started in this decade. So being more focused on technology than profitability is a valid business strategy, as long as you have runway. That's what I'm saying, and what I think you disagree with.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    Thanks for putting everything in one paragraph. "So being more focused on technology than profitability is a valid business strategy, as long as you have runway." Yes, I agree with this. Which is why I don't really have a problem with companies like Twitter (you can debate the technical merits, but it's certainly different). They've kept their team lean and haven't taken gobs of money right away and all at once like some of these other startups My comments were more aimed at investors & companies that spend money just to spend money on either me-too ideas (e.g. many many ad networks, social networks) or overcapitalizing companies that aren't ready for it. They and their brethren aren't investing in the development of cutting edge technology at all, they're doing something because everyone else is.

DaniFong 18y ago

Why should the risk strategy of a company be any different from a personal risk strategy? If anything companies can afford to be riskier.

fallentimes 18y ago
In theory it shouldn't. That's why I try to be as risk neutral as possible and why I'm doing a startup. The problem with some of these over capitalized startups is they throw themselves in to risking seeking situations.