4 ms·
IMO, so many entrepreneurs have made it that they are paying it forward and reinvesting in the ecosystem. So while many of these companies may fail — like many
by pxlpshr 17y ago
IMO, so many entrepreneurs have made it that they are paying it forward and reinvesting in the ecosystem. So while many of these companies may fail — like many do regardless of geographic location, they'll produce talent that has experience and a better understanding in the next cycle. I agree that there is hype, thats the nature of the beast with popularity and seemingly unavoidable... but it contributes to maintaining the ecosystem in SF.
Also, I've concluded most investors prefer investing in strong teams over simply a new idea. Many of the 2.0 startups are stacked with guys from 1.0 era.
- axod 17y agoThe measurement is all off though. Who is doing well in 2.0? Twitter??? Seriously? IMHO startups are being judged mainly on 'hype' and how much investment they get rather than usual sane business metrics.
- icey 17y agoI agree 100% - I have a hard time remembering when the metric for success was profitability, at least as far as internet startups are concerned. Google comes to mind, but only because such a huge deal was made of their IPO. I think prior to that everyone considered them successful based on their popularity alone (figuring that Google was barely breaking even before their financials were released).