3 ms·

While I think many would agree that Schmidt has done some questionable business things, the undertone of the article is just distasteful. If all you do is do he

While I think many would agree that Schmidt has done some questionable business things, the undertone of the article is just distasteful. If all you do is do head-honcho stuff, then why is it unusual that you would date another like-minded person and do a "side project" together? Also, why is his poly relationship being tossed out there in the same context as this 100M venture going sideways? Lots of companies go sideways, especially when you've been too used to working at a nice big one. This is probably going to be a learning curve for anyone coming from that world, to get used to being small and scrappy again, while holding onto what knowledge they gained before.

yieldcrv 3y ago
Exactly, for one this seems like just another Schmidt Futures, which is a non profit version of the same thing which he and his wife Wendy launched together And secondly, having run in those circles for a little while, everything I read in this article was typical. If you’re relying on other companies in order to do or announce anything, then it works on the other companies schedule. Lots of “letters on intents” and things that do not translate into a wire transfer. Lots of talks at hotel cafes near the actual conference, that are overhyped as anything meaningful. Everybody does this. I don’t enjoy this but I know many many people that operate this way. And the article also failed to mention what’s failing. If it’s an investor in other companies as an incubator, it can be an investor. It is very common for one company to lead the relationship while another company moves the funds. That’s nobody’s business. Declining to mention your other investors doesn’t mean anything. Schmidt Futures is a vanity project too. It is just structured in the best way for not getting that perception, using the non profit tax code. Like every other “philanthropic arm” that’s not leveraging anonymity that the state affords non profits. So who cares? This is just celebrity gossip. And misogyny. for two reasons: 1 being that I don't see the same denigration from other companies operating the same way, when it could be applied to many wannabe founders. 2 the whole thing is supposed to be about a 29 year old woman taking advantage of a billionaire. which even if that was the entire extent of the relationship, being annoyed by that choice is based on disdain from not having the hardware to have the same choices. if its not the total extent then the article has no reason to exist, especially without quantifying whats not going well. is it “not going well” at investing in a fruit salad of AI startups? why were the expenses so high? is it because it has a bunch of illiquid investments because it successfully invested? the article didn’t say.

yieldcrv 3y ago

Exactly, for one this seems like just another Schmidt Futures, which is a non profit version of the same thing which he and his wife Wendy launched together And secondly, having run in those circles for a little while, everything I read in this article was typical. If you’re relying on other companies in order to do or announce anything, then it works on the other companies schedule. Lots of “letters on intents” and things that do not translate into a wire transfer. Lots of talks at hotel cafes near the actual conference, that are overhyped as anything meaningful. Everybody does this. I don’t enjoy this but I know many many people that operate this way. And the article also failed to mention what’s failing. If it’s an investor in other companies as an incubator, it can be an investor. It is very common for one company to lead the relationship while another company moves the funds. That’s nobody’s business. Declining to mention your other investors doesn’t mean anything. Schmidt Futures is a vanity project too. It is just structured in the best way for not getting that perception, using the non profit tax code. Like every other “philanthropic arm” that’s not leveraging anonymity that the state affords non profits. So who cares? This is just celebrity gossip. And misogyny. for two reasons: 1 being that I don't see the same denigration from other companies operating the same way, when it could be applied to many wannabe founders. 2 the whole thing is supposed to be about a 29 year old woman taking advantage of a billionaire. which even if that was the entire extent of the relationship, being annoyed by that choice is based on disdain from not having the hardware to have the same choices. if its not the total extent then the article has no reason to exist, especially without quantifying whats not going well. is it “not going well” at investing in a fruit salad of AI startups? why were the expenses so high? is it because it has a bunch of illiquid investments because it successfully invested? the article didn’t say.