4 ms·
3 - too expensive (Apollo, Apple, Intel) 3 - bad idea 1 - small market (eBay) 1 - no traction (Lotus) 1 - big incumbent (Compaq) 2 - rookie t
by smilliken 14y ago
3 - too expensive (Apollo, Apple, Intel)
3 - bad idea
1 - small market (eBay)
1 - no traction (Lotus)
1 - big incumbent (Compaq)
2 - rookie team (Google, Paypal)
2 - no reason (FedEx, Intuit)
1 didn't understand (StrataCom)
If the reasons are to be trusted (take them with a grain of salt), then they may have learned to i) be more competitive on expensive deals, ii) give "bad ideas" more thought, and iii) not dismiss rookie teams.
- ShaneWilton 14y agogive "bad ideas" more thought Paul Graham wrote about this just a few months ago. It's worth a read: http://www.paulgraham.com/swan.html http://www.paulgraham.com/swan.html
- michaelt 14y agoIf the rule that kept them from investing in Apple and Intel also kept them from investing in Webvan and Pets.com (and a dozen other costly failures) they might think on balance it's a good rule. You'll note there's no page on their portfolio for "bad investments we didn't make".
- smilliken 14y agoI entirely agree. From their perspective though, it's more important to pick the hits than avoid the losers (within reason). An investment in Google while they were in a garage could happily pay for a dozen Webvans.