正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

A few years ago Patrick Collison remarked there are fewer younger founders today. Ben Horowitz and Martin Casado agree that's what the hardware era looks like, for now: "If you look at Elon or Travis Kalanick, their companies when they were young were software companies. Even those guys, the...

a16z's profile picture

a16z

1,067,966 subscribers

67,182 次观看 • 5 天前 •via X (Twitter)

科学技术教育新闻政治
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Martin Casado says Cursor's founders spend 30-40% of their time on hiring and culture, and that focus is how they iterate so fast: "A lot of these AI companies that I work with are so research-heavy. If you're not working on a new model architecture, it's kind of hard to actually interest the core teams." "They always kept the main thing the main thing, which is changing how you write software. They believed fundamentally it was a product problem... The model's very, very important, but it was a product problem." "There's actually not a lot of companies that are actually focused on product... There's a lot of research companies... But they were like, 'We are a product company.' And I think that's actually a key differentiator in this era." martin_casado w/ sophia dew and Theo Jaffee on MTS
1:25

Martin Casado says Cursor's founders spend 30-40% of their time on hiring and culture, and that focus is how they iterate so fast: "A lot of these AI companies that I work with are so research-heavy. If you're not working on a new model architecture, it's kind of hard to actually interest the core teams." "They always kept the main thing the main thing, which is changing how you write software. They believed fundamentally it was a product problem... The model's very, very important, but it was a product problem." "There's actually not a lot of companies that are actually focused on product... There's a lot of research companies... But they were like, 'We are a product company.' And I think that's actually a key differentiator in this era." martin_casado w/ sophia dew and Theo Jaffee on MTS

a16z

80,346 次观看 • 12 天前

Ben Horowitz on the two things every successful technology startup must do 1. Build a product that improves how some large group of people does something by 10x. “You have to build a transformational product. There is no way to build a great new company without a great product… If you look at the great technology companies, the thing that distinguishes them is the ability to keep coming up with a better way of doing things.” 2. Taking the market. “You can come up with the best product, but if you don’t [take the market], you really don’t have a company. Most technology businesses are network effects businesses. You have to win… If you’re an engineer, what business skills do you need to build a technology company? They’re all around the skills that you need to win the market. How do you out-market, out-sell, and beat the competition?… Do you build a good enough company that you go win?” Video source: UC Berkeley (2009)
1:50

Ben Horowitz on the two things every successful technology startup must do 1. Build a product that improves how some large group of people does something by 10x. “You have to build a transformational product. There is no way to build a great new company without a great product… If you look at the great technology companies, the thing that distinguishes them is the ability to keep coming up with a better way of doing things.” 2. Taking the market. “You can come up with the best product, but if you don’t [take the market], you really don’t have a company. Most technology businesses are network effects businesses. You have to win… If you’re an engineer, what business skills do you need to build a technology company? They’re all around the skills that you need to win the market. How do you out-market, out-sell, and beat the competition?… Do you build a good enough company that you go win?” Video source: UC Berkeley (2009)

Startup Archive

36,789 次观看 • 5 个月前

Ben Horowitz explains the two things every successful technology startup must do 1. Build a product that improves how some large group of people does something by 10x. “You have to build a transformational product. There is no way to build a great new company without a great product… If you look at the great technology companies, the thing that distinguishes them is the ability to keep coming up with a better way of doing things.” 2. Taking the market. “You can come up with the best product, but if you don’t [take the market], you really don’t have a company. Most technology businesses are network effects businesses. You have to win… If you’re an engineer, what business skills do you need to build a technology company? They’re all around the skills that you need to win the market. How do you out-market, out-sell, and beat the competition?… Do you build a good enough company that you go win?” Video Source: UC Berkeley
1:50

Ben Horowitz explains the two things every successful technology startup must do 1. Build a product that improves how some large group of people does something by 10x. “You have to build a transformational product. There is no way to build a great new company without a great product… If you look at the great technology companies, the thing that distinguishes them is the ability to keep coming up with a better way of doing things.” 2. Taking the market. “You can come up with the best product, but if you don’t [take the market], you really don’t have a company. Most technology businesses are network effects businesses. You have to win… If you’re an engineer, what business skills do you need to build a technology company? They’re all around the skills that you need to win the market. How do you out-market, out-sell, and beat the competition?… Do you build a good enough company that you go win?” Video Source: UC Berkeley

Startup Archive

77,268 次观看 • 2 年前

Austen Allred on Gauntlet AI: "We're very up front that we're 80 to 100 hours a week. If you think that that's a terrible idea, please don't come." "We're in Austin, all right? That's a sacrifice for a lot of people. If you don't think like coming to Austin for 100 hours a week and jamming on AI unpaid and just building stuff to figure out how much you can learn and hopefully getting a job on the other side... if you don't think that's awesome, that's totally fine. Please don't come." "There are some psychos out there that think that that's a good time. We wanna collect all those psychos. So come all, come all ye crazy people. And if that's not for you, that's okay." "There are companies that come to us and say, "Hey, we want, you know, 100 engineers that are going to sit in our division of printer drivers and sit there." And I'm like, "They would kill themselves." The people that are coming to Gauntlet would not do that. And so we turn companies down too." So we know who we are, we know what we stand for. You know, it helps that I'm one of those people that would've loved that. So is Ash Tilawat, and so is everybody else that works at Gauntlet. "So it's not hard for us to find other crazy people like ourselves. And that doesn't have to be you. That's okay." "We're not trying to empire build or solve all of humanity's greatest problems. We know that there's a limit to who we're addressing and what we're addressing at any given time." "So our goal is to be the best thing we can possibly be for that weird island of misfits. And for the companies that need a weird island of misfits, we'll be that all day long."
1:51

Austen Allred on Gauntlet AI: "We're very up front that we're 80 to 100 hours a week. If you think that that's a terrible idea, please don't come." "We're in Austin, all right? That's a sacrifice for a lot of people. If you don't think like coming to Austin for 100 hours a week and jamming on AI unpaid and just building stuff to figure out how much you can learn and hopefully getting a job on the other side... if you don't think that's awesome, that's totally fine. Please don't come." "There are some psychos out there that think that that's a good time. We wanna collect all those psychos. So come all, come all ye crazy people. And if that's not for you, that's okay." "There are companies that come to us and say, "Hey, we want, you know, 100 engineers that are going to sit in our division of printer drivers and sit there." And I'm like, "They would kill themselves." The people that are coming to Gauntlet would not do that. And so we turn companies down too." So we know who we are, we know what we stand for. You know, it helps that I'm one of those people that would've loved that. So is Ash Tilawat, and so is everybody else that works at Gauntlet. "So it's not hard for us to find other crazy people like ourselves. And that doesn't have to be you. That's okay." "We're not trying to empire build or solve all of humanity's greatest problems. We know that there's a limit to who we're addressing and what we're addressing at any given time." "So our goal is to be the best thing we can possibly be for that weird island of misfits. And for the companies that need a weird island of misfits, we'll be that all day long."

Ben Averbook

12,153 次观看 • 10 个月前

Katherine Boyle says SpaceX’s legacy will be the thousands of companies that spawn from the school of Elon Musk: "What we've learned from the SpaceX story is that these kinds of companies can be built." "It is one of the most important companies in America. It's beloved by Americans across the country for what it's been able to achieve." "The legacy of SpaceX is going to be hundreds, if not thousands of companies—people who've gone to the school of Elon Musk, they've learned manufacturing and they've built companies, and built products in a way that they can take to new companies in manufacturing and defense, and drones and hypersonics—all of these other categories that SpaceX doesn't do." "We're incredibly excited about SpaceX. We're incredibly excited for what it's achieved for the American people and what it's going to lead to over the next 25 years." Katherine Boyle on FOX Business
0:37

Katherine Boyle says SpaceX’s legacy will be the thousands of companies that spawn from the school of Elon Musk: "What we've learned from the SpaceX story is that these kinds of companies can be built." "It is one of the most important companies in America. It's beloved by Americans across the country for what it's been able to achieve." "The legacy of SpaceX is going to be hundreds, if not thousands of companies—people who've gone to the school of Elon Musk, they've learned manufacturing and they've built companies, and built products in a way that they can take to new companies in manufacturing and defense, and drones and hypersonics—all of these other categories that SpaceX doesn't do." "We're incredibly excited about SpaceX. We're incredibly excited for what it's achieved for the American people and what it's going to lead to over the next 25 years." Katherine Boyle on FOX Business

a16z

658,981 次观看 • 5 个月前

.Naval on Finding Technical Co-founders Join the conversation: "It's getting harder and harder because these days those people just go and start their own company. So what do you bring to the table that a good technical co-founder would not have? That's number one. And that would either mean you have some particular deep insight and relationships into a market and you have capital because you've got to bring a lot to the table because you're not creating the product anymore. Or secondly, you have to have a relationship that's pre-existing. You worked together before at some company or you've gone to school together. Outside of those cases, it's incredibly hard to recruit a quality technical co-founder. And I'm not even sure you're in a position to start a company. This is why so many companies come out of universities or come out of the Bay Area because there you're just very likely to have business founders and technical founders next to each other. The business founders at least have enough technical experience that they can properly evaluate the technical co-founder. And then the business founder has to hustle and raise money, recruit people, have a vision, have a customer base, have a market ready to go, and have proven themselves. And now lots and lots of other things to balance out the skills a technical founder brings to the table. There are now more successful cases of solo technical founders starting companies than there are of solo non-technical founders starting companies. So it is an uphill climb. I'm not going to sugarcoat it for you.”
2:04

.Naval on Finding Technical Co-founders Join the conversation: "It's getting harder and harder because these days those people just go and start their own company. So what do you bring to the table that a good technical co-founder would not have? That's number one. And that would either mean you have some particular deep insight and relationships into a market and you have capital because you've got to bring a lot to the table because you're not creating the product anymore. Or secondly, you have to have a relationship that's pre-existing. You worked together before at some company or you've gone to school together. Outside of those cases, it's incredibly hard to recruit a quality technical co-founder. And I'm not even sure you're in a position to start a company. This is why so many companies come out of universities or come out of the Bay Area because there you're just very likely to have business founders and technical founders next to each other. The business founders at least have enough technical experience that they can properly evaluate the technical co-founder. And then the business founder has to hustle and raise money, recruit people, have a vision, have a customer base, have a market ready to go, and have proven themselves. And now lots and lots of other things to balance out the skills a technical founder brings to the table. There are now more successful cases of solo technical founders starting companies than there are of solo non-technical founders starting companies. So it is an uphill climb. I'm not going to sugarcoat it for you.”

Airchat

14,860 次观看 • 2 年前

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."
2:15

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."

Founder Mode

39,005 次观看 • 7 个月前

Ben Horowitz says the difference between a great idea and a great company is the entrepreneur: "If you look at Tesla, what you would see is big oil, big auto, big government, were never going to let that happen." "They would kill you. But the reality is, Elon Musk, he's hard to kill. He by himself kind of decarbonized the American auto industry, which is unbelievable in retrospect." "If you listen to the politicians now, they're like 'oh, he didn't build Tesla, he just struck a gold mine and is pulling the gold out, all the people built it.'" "Why didn't all those people build another Tesla? Because there's only one non-fungible, very rare person in that equation who could do that. That's why there's only one SpaceX." travis kalanick benahorowitz.eth Erik Torenberg
1:56

Ben Horowitz says the difference between a great idea and a great company is the entrepreneur: "If you look at Tesla, what you would see is big oil, big auto, big government, were never going to let that happen." "They would kill you. But the reality is, Elon Musk, he's hard to kill. He by himself kind of decarbonized the American auto industry, which is unbelievable in retrospect." "If you listen to the politicians now, they're like 'oh, he didn't build Tesla, he just struck a gold mine and is pulling the gold out, all the people built it.'" "Why didn't all those people build another Tesla? Because there's only one non-fungible, very rare person in that equation who could do that. That's why there's only one SpaceX." travis kalanick benahorowitz.eth Erik Torenberg

a16z

185,615 次观看 • 1 个月前

Elon Musk: A lot of companies are honey traps for talented engineers. Tesla and SpaceX aren't honey traps. We're demanding and you'll get a lot of shit done. “I consider one of my core responsibilities running companies to have an environment where great engineers can flourish. I think in a lot of companies, maybe most companies, if somebody's a really talented, driven engineer, their talents are suppressed. At some of the companies the engineering talent is suppressed in a way that is maybe not obviously bad, but where it's just so comfortable and you're paid so much money but the output you actually have to produce is so low that it's like a honey trap. There's a few honey trap places in Silicon Valley where they don't necessarily seem like bad places for engineers, but you have to say a good engineer went in and what did they get out? And the output of that engineering talent seems very low, even though they seem to be enjoying themselves. That's why I call it, there's a few honey trap companies in Silicon Valley. Tesla is not a honey trap. We're demanding and you're going to get a lot of shit done. And it's gonna be really cool and it's not gonna be easy, but if you are a super-talented engineer, your talents will be used, I think to a greater degree than anywhere else. SpaceX is also that way.” Tesla AI Day, September 30, 2022
1:41

Elon Musk: A lot of companies are honey traps for talented engineers. Tesla and SpaceX aren't honey traps. We're demanding and you'll get a lot of shit done. “I consider one of my core responsibilities running companies to have an environment where great engineers can flourish. I think in a lot of companies, maybe most companies, if somebody's a really talented, driven engineer, their talents are suppressed. At some of the companies the engineering talent is suppressed in a way that is maybe not obviously bad, but where it's just so comfortable and you're paid so much money but the output you actually have to produce is so low that it's like a honey trap. There's a few honey trap places in Silicon Valley where they don't necessarily seem like bad places for engineers, but you have to say a good engineer went in and what did they get out? And the output of that engineering talent seems very low, even though they seem to be enjoying themselves. That's why I call it, there's a few honey trap companies in Silicon Valley. Tesla is not a honey trap. We're demanding and you're going to get a lot of shit done. And it's gonna be really cool and it's not gonna be easy, but if you are a super-talented engineer, your talents will be used, I think to a greater degree than anywhere else. SpaceX is also that way.” Tesla AI Day, September 30, 2022

ELON CLIPS

18,090,935 次观看 • 1 年前

Alex on why AI drug discovery companies need to generate novel data to succeed: "AI models based on the research that's available is a lot of garbage in and garbage out." "A lot of the recorded literature is actually incorrect. There's been tons of studies that show if you go try to replicate the experiments that are in the literature, you don't even get the same results." "The AI companies that I believe are gonna be most set up for success are the companies with a novel way to generate science tokens that don't exist in the public domain."
2:16

Alex on why AI drug discovery companies need to generate novel data to succeed: "AI models based on the research that's available is a lot of garbage in and garbage out." "A lot of the recorded literature is actually incorrect. There's been tons of studies that show if you go try to replicate the experiments that are in the literature, you don't even get the same results." "The AI companies that I believe are gonna be most set up for success are the companies with a novel way to generate science tokens that don't exist in the public domain."

Patrick OShaughnessy

126,646 次观看 • 4 个月前

Anish Acharya: We're going to see a "YouTube moment for software": "If you think about YouTube 20 years ago—we had lots of video and lots of television, and it was high production quality, and it wasn't clear that we needed more and 20 years later, YouTube's a $550 billion enterprise that would be one of the biggest companies in the world if it was independent." "I think the same thing is going to happen for software. People want to make software, and for the first time they can—and they can distribute it and they can consume it." "Sometimes it's going to be important software. Sometimes it's going to be totally trivial. It's going to be software for a bachelor party weekend, software for a joke, software for a prompt. We have this sort of seriousness about software that we had about video and television 20 years ago." "Now it's like—I just took a video on my phone. It's going to be like—I just made an app on my phone. Same energy." Anish Acharya on BILLIONS with Guillaume Moubeche
1:30

Anish Acharya: We're going to see a "YouTube moment for software": "If you think about YouTube 20 years ago—we had lots of video and lots of television, and it was high production quality, and it wasn't clear that we needed more and 20 years later, YouTube's a $550 billion enterprise that would be one of the biggest companies in the world if it was independent." "I think the same thing is going to happen for software. People want to make software, and for the first time they can—and they can distribute it and they can consume it." "Sometimes it's going to be important software. Sometimes it's going to be totally trivial. It's going to be software for a bachelor party weekend, software for a joke, software for a prompt. We have this sort of seriousness about software that we had about video and television 20 years ago." "Now it's like—I just took a video on my phone. It's going to be like—I just made an app on my phone. Same energy." Anish Acharya on BILLIONS with Guillaume Moubeche

a16z

102,908 次观看 • 5 个月前

William got margin called and pledged over $1B of his own stock to fund Column. He explains why extreme personal risk is what makes great founders, and why we see less of it today: "I think that the good founders bet on themselves and take an extreme amount of risk to do that. The extreme amount of risk part is something that we no longer have. But when there's literally only one door in front of you. You don't have a choice, and that fear and innate desire creates another part of you. It creates creativity, it creates inspiration. It's extremely valuable part of the founder journey. And in many ways, Silicon Valley we've actually removed that. I don't know why we don't talk about it more. If you go back to pre 2008, you're on the edge of the knife. We don't create environments where a founder has to bet themselves. I think starting companies are just too f**king safe. It's caused a lot of companies to be super safe companies like, we're gonna pivot to AI...that's not bold, that's not ambitious. It's because we are attracting founders that actually want to be employees. They don't think if I don't pull this off, I'm going to become bankrupt. My life is over and I think that's pretty healthy. That's when you bring out the rawness of humanity and I don't see that very much anymore. The weird thing is an early stage employee takes way more risk than an early stage founder. And I don't think we should actually de-risk the early stage employee. I just think we need to increase the risk for founders. I think we need to make failure much more expensive."
2:44

William got margin called and pledged over $1B of his own stock to fund Column. He explains why extreme personal risk is what makes great founders, and why we see less of it today: "I think that the good founders bet on themselves and take an extreme amount of risk to do that. The extreme amount of risk part is something that we no longer have. But when there's literally only one door in front of you. You don't have a choice, and that fear and innate desire creates another part of you. It creates creativity, it creates inspiration. It's extremely valuable part of the founder journey. And in many ways, Silicon Valley we've actually removed that. I don't know why we don't talk about it more. If you go back to pre 2008, you're on the edge of the knife. We don't create environments where a founder has to bet themselves. I think starting companies are just too f**king safe. It's caused a lot of companies to be super safe companies like, we're gonna pivot to AI...that's not bold, that's not ambitious. It's because we are attracting founders that actually want to be employees. They don't think if I don't pull this off, I'm going to become bankrupt. My life is over and I think that's pretty healthy. That's when you bring out the rawness of humanity and I don't see that very much anymore. The weird thing is an early stage employee takes way more risk than an early stage founder. And I don't think we should actually de-risk the early stage employee. I just think we need to increase the risk for founders. I think we need to make failure much more expensive."

Patrick OShaughnessy

86,597 次观看 • 5 个月前

Marc Andreessen on the 3 things he looks for when investing in a startup The first thing Marc Andreesen looks for is a big market: “Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and displace incumbents? Or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big?” The second thing he looks for is a 10x better product: “Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that justifies a new company? And the way I always think about that is: Is there a 10x change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10x faster, 10x cheaper, or 10x better? If it’s not 10x, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs have to ask ourselves if it’s really worth doing because it’s really hard to start new companies . . . Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. So for a new company to exist, it has to bring a product to market that’s so much better than what exists that it punches through the status quo.” The third is the team: “Is the team outstanding? . . . You want to have a founding team of complementary skillsets. You want to have at least one super strong technologist — quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist. And then it often helps to have someone who is a marketing or salesperson who has a really good understanding of business.” Marc believes that you need all three of these, but if you’re going to compromise on one of those as an investor, it should be the product: “A great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution. The problem with a poor or small market is that even if you do a good job on the product, there just aren’t that many customers so it’s hard to ever get big and people get demoralized . . . And then we evaluate the team of a startup by its ability to get into a big market with a good product.”
2:43

Marc Andreessen on the 3 things he looks for when investing in a startup The first thing Marc Andreesen looks for is a big market: “Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and displace incumbents? Or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big?” The second thing he looks for is a 10x better product: “Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that justifies a new company? And the way I always think about that is: Is there a 10x change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10x faster, 10x cheaper, or 10x better? If it’s not 10x, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs have to ask ourselves if it’s really worth doing because it’s really hard to start new companies . . . Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. So for a new company to exist, it has to bring a product to market that’s so much better than what exists that it punches through the status quo.” The third is the team: “Is the team outstanding? . . . You want to have a founding team of complementary skillsets. You want to have at least one super strong technologist — quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist. And then it often helps to have someone who is a marketing or salesperson who has a really good understanding of business.” Marc believes that you need all three of these, but if you’re going to compromise on one of those as an investor, it should be the product: “A great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution. The problem with a poor or small market is that even if you do a good job on the product, there just aren’t that many customers so it’s hard to ever get big and people get demoralized . . . And then we evaluate the team of a startup by its ability to get into a big market with a good product.”

Startup Archive

17,333 次观看 • 7 个月前

Some millennials have been working for 20 years and are still confused by corporate 😂 For those who are still in the dark let me fill you in. Your performance doesn't matter. Your performance review doesn't matter. Your compensation has been set by a budget committee a year ago. You are not "overachieving" anything. Management has a fixed pool of money to pay the people they manage so they can give them raises less than inflation. If they give you more money, they have to give someone else less money. It's a zero-sum game. Managers actually have a larger pool of money to hire new employees because corporations recognize that new hires need to be incentivized to come over. They won't just leave their company for the same money. If you've been at the same company for 5 years you are underpaid. If you've been at the same company for 10 years you are paid less than a new hire at a competitor. Loyalty doesn't matter because there is no reason for a company to voluntarily pay you more money. Corporations already know that over 95% of employees will not go anywhere and will take whatever they get. Even if that's nothing. There's no reason to pay everybody more money when only a tiny percentage of workers will leave. Even if you leave... (remember over 95% of employees will not) ... the corporation will distribute the work you were doing among all your coworkers. And they will take on the extra work. And they will stay. For nothing. Because in addition to a salary, what an employee wants is to not have to look for a new job. That's all the want. They don't want to move anywhere. And companies know it, and they will take advantage of that. Now you know! You're welcome.
2:50

Some millennials have been working for 20 years and are still confused by corporate 😂 For those who are still in the dark let me fill you in. Your performance doesn't matter. Your performance review doesn't matter. Your compensation has been set by a budget committee a year ago. You are not "overachieving" anything. Management has a fixed pool of money to pay the people they manage so they can give them raises less than inflation. If they give you more money, they have to give someone else less money. It's a zero-sum game. Managers actually have a larger pool of money to hire new employees because corporations recognize that new hires need to be incentivized to come over. They won't just leave their company for the same money. If you've been at the same company for 5 years you are underpaid. If you've been at the same company for 10 years you are paid less than a new hire at a competitor. Loyalty doesn't matter because there is no reason for a company to voluntarily pay you more money. Corporations already know that over 95% of employees will not go anywhere and will take whatever they get. Even if that's nothing. There's no reason to pay everybody more money when only a tiny percentage of workers will leave. Even if you leave... (remember over 95% of employees will not) ... the corporation will distribute the work you were doing among all your coworkers. And they will take on the extra work. And they will stay. For nothing. Because in addition to a salary, what an employee wants is to not have to look for a new job. That's all the want. They don't want to move anywhere. And companies know it, and they will take advantage of that. Now you know! You're welcome.

Lazy Canadian Investor

66,816 次观看 • 2 年前

Sequoia partner Pat Grady says software is shifting from apps that demand attention to agents that work quietly in the background. This shift will change what moats will look like, and will be especially hard for incumbents to deal with. "It's two very different business paradigms," he says. "In an era of apps, you want a lot of surface area with your customers, you want them to spend a lot of time in your product." "In an era of agents, things can just be running passively in the background. The amount of surface area you have with your customers, the amount of time they might spend in your product might be de minimis. So the nature of the moat that you [will need to build] is different." "I think we'll see a lot of companies in the coming years able to live in the software world and have some of the workflows people are accustomed to. And then separately they can deploy these passive agents that kind of function as coworkers who just come back to you when things are done."
2:02

Sequoia partner Pat Grady says software is shifting from apps that demand attention to agents that work quietly in the background. This shift will change what moats will look like, and will be especially hard for incumbents to deal with. "It's two very different business paradigms," he says. "In an era of apps, you want a lot of surface area with your customers, you want them to spend a lot of time in your product." "In an era of agents, things can just be running passively in the background. The amount of surface area you have with your customers, the amount of time they might spend in your product might be de minimis. So the nature of the moat that you [will need to build] is different." "I think we'll see a lot of companies in the coming years able to live in the software world and have some of the workflows people are accustomed to. And then separately they can deploy these passive agents that kind of function as coworkers who just come back to you when things are done."

TBPN

58,374 次观看 • 7 个月前

Jaylen Brown says players should be able to own equity in teams because they help increase the value of NBA franchises “Players should be able to invest alongside ownership groups and business opportunities. I don't understand why that’s ever been a thing. It's like you’re an athlete and they make it seem like they can control how much wealth or growth that you could actually accumulate. I think that's wrong” “I also think that any other major corporation, if you work for Apple, Nike or anywhere, if you're a CEO, if you're someone who has been on a board for a large amount of time, you get equity in a company at some point. You are part of it” “I think athletes should be looked at in the same way. You played for the Celtics for 20 years, you should get a piece of equity because you helped accumulate the growth. That's the part that gets lost in translation. The sweat equity you put in. You get compensated for doing your job, but you don't get compensated for the growth. At major corporations and companies you do, or at least some of the big ones”
1:18

Jaylen Brown says players should be able to own equity in teams because they help increase the value of NBA franchises “Players should be able to invest alongside ownership groups and business opportunities. I don't understand why that’s ever been a thing. It's like you’re an athlete and they make it seem like they can control how much wealth or growth that you could actually accumulate. I think that's wrong” “I also think that any other major corporation, if you work for Apple, Nike or anywhere, if you're a CEO, if you're someone who has been on a board for a large amount of time, you get equity in a company at some point. You are part of it” “I think athletes should be looked at in the same way. You played for the Celtics for 20 years, you should get a piece of equity because you helped accumulate the growth. That's the part that gets lost in translation. The sweat equity you put in. You get compensated for doing your job, but you don't get compensated for the growth. At major corporations and companies you do, or at least some of the big ones”

dank

3,038,119 次观看 • 1 个月前

ELON: I ENSURE GREAT ENGINEERS CAN FLOURISH AT MY COMPANIES “I consider one of my core responsibilities in running companies to have an environment where great engineers can flourish. And I think in a lot of companies, maybe most companies, if somebody is a really talented, driven engineer, their talents are suppressed. At some of the companies, engineering talent is suppressed in a way that is maybe not obviously bad, but where it's just so comfortable, and you're paid so much money, but the output you actually have to produce is so low that it's like a honey trap. They don't necessarily seem like bad places for engineers, but you have to say, a good engineer went in and what did they get out? The output of that engineering talent seems very low. Tesla is not a honey trap. We're demanding. You're going to get a lot of shit done. And it's going to be really cool, and it's not going to be easy. But if you are a super-talented engineer, your talents will be used, I think, to a greater degree than anywhere else. SpaceX is also that way.” Source: Tesla AI Day, September 2022
1:18

ELON: I ENSURE GREAT ENGINEERS CAN FLOURISH AT MY COMPANIES “I consider one of my core responsibilities in running companies to have an environment where great engineers can flourish. And I think in a lot of companies, maybe most companies, if somebody is a really talented, driven engineer, their talents are suppressed. At some of the companies, engineering talent is suppressed in a way that is maybe not obviously bad, but where it's just so comfortable, and you're paid so much money, but the output you actually have to produce is so low that it's like a honey trap. They don't necessarily seem like bad places for engineers, but you have to say, a good engineer went in and what did they get out? The output of that engineering talent seems very low. Tesla is not a honey trap. We're demanding. You're going to get a lot of shit done. And it's going to be really cool, and it's not going to be easy. But if you are a super-talented engineer, your talents will be used, I think, to a greater degree than anywhere else. SpaceX is also that way.” Source: Tesla AI Day, September 2022

Mario Nawfal

20,354,729 次观看 • 1 年前

Sequoia’s Shaun Maguire wrote a private hardware manifesto arguing that over the next 25 years, most of the money will be made in hardware: "Every software revolution is preceded by a hardware revolution." "To have the iOS App Store that enabled Uber, DoorDash, and all of these great companies - you needed to have the iPhone." "This AI revolution - we're seeing what it can do from the software layer, but it's still limited by hardware." "The hardware we were doing for a long time was all following Moore's Law. It was all branching out of this decision in the mid-1950s to go all in on the silicon supply chain." "That has created magic, and there's still a couple orders of magnitude of juice to squeeze, but we’re hitting fundamental physics limits - Dennard scaling, things like that." "I think this tech tree is branching into humanoid robots, into silicon photonics, into orbital data centers - all of these new hardware areas where there's going to be 20+ years of progress." "There's going to be incredible businesses built on the back of this. And a lot of dumpster fires."
3:35

Sequoia’s Shaun Maguire wrote a private hardware manifesto arguing that over the next 25 years, most of the money will be made in hardware: "Every software revolution is preceded by a hardware revolution." "To have the iOS App Store that enabled Uber, DoorDash, and all of these great companies - you needed to have the iPhone." "This AI revolution - we're seeing what it can do from the software layer, but it's still limited by hardware." "The hardware we were doing for a long time was all following Moore's Law. It was all branching out of this decision in the mid-1950s to go all in on the silicon supply chain." "That has created magic, and there's still a couple orders of magnitude of juice to squeeze, but we’re hitting fundamental physics limits - Dennard scaling, things like that." "I think this tech tree is branching into humanoid robots, into silicon photonics, into orbital data centers - all of these new hardware areas where there's going to be 20+ years of progress." "There's going to be incredible businesses built on the back of this. And a lot of dumpster fires."

TBPN

218,127 次观看 • 5 个月前