I somewhat agree with his assessment of business models that hinge on freemium or entry-points priced at $0, but I think he (like other seed-stage investors) te

I somewhat agree with his assessment of business models that hinge on freemium or entry-points priced at $0, but I think he (like other seed-stage investors) tend to overlook an ill-conceived strategy that I call the "platform play" common in today's early-stage company landscape. Utilizing some form of the this strategy - building a multi-level rather than a singular product, i.e. a social network or blogging tool that caters to X, Y and Z demographics when it should focus on X or the intersection of XYZ demographics - is almost doomed to gain minimal viable traction. I may be wrong, but I think "quick riches" founders of startups look at the success of Google (a free business, with a targeted product from the start that later monetized) or Facebook (singular product starting with the Ivy League demographic, built around ads with an impressive $300-400 million revenue stage, minus hype) and think, "I can do the same." I don't think so. Don't confuse the ecosystem these companies have built (contextual ads and social applications, respectively, worth hundreds of millions of dollars) with how they started. For some, free is an entry-point to using your product (perhaps content, bare features, etc) but for others, particularly e-commerce, free and "platform plays" are short sighted toward revenue and profit goals. Smart founders and investors see "free" as an integrated component in their company's vision, when applicable.