5 ms·
That was exactly what I was going to ask. PG, would you mind explaining the predetermined wording? It seems counter intuitive for someone who funds disruptive
by wtvanhest 15y ago
That was exactly what I was going to ask. PG, would you mind explaining the predetermined wording? It seems counter intuitive for someone who funds disruptive companies to say so I have a sense that there is more to it.
- eru 15y agoLook back a hundred years (or so). Even if you shot the people who invented colour film or sound in films, somebody else would have developed those.
- wtvanhest 15y agoI cannot think of a good counter argument to that. This could be a totally different way of thinking about investing than the way I previously thought. Assuming the investor can figure out what the next big thing is, their only goal is to find the team with the highest likelihood of success.
- eru 15y agoDepends. Some industry get big in terms of revenue, but not in terms of profit. The eternal example is airlines. Flat screen makers are a more recent variation. (The Economist runs on article on them this week.) Sometimes selling shovels is more lucrative than digging for gold. Or ignore those industries altogether, like Warren Buffet did with technology.
- hythloday 15y agoThe idea is often called "Steam-engine time", e.g. http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6089/the-art-of-fiction-no-211-william-gibson http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6089/the-art-of-fic...
- saalweachter 15y agoThe savvy investor doesn't even need to do that. If the payout is high enough, he can invest in all the teams with any chance of success.