Google didn't take time doing anything. They spent millions on building out datacenters and on bandwidth.
The big thing that separates them from the Netscape story is that they're apparently smarter and managed to create a financially successful company. Its quite conceivable that lesser men would have given us Netscape #2.
"You cannot predict the future- you cannot predict the level of success you will have in advance."
But being forced to try things more quickly than you might otherwise may help you discover problems and their solutions before others do, like a fast forward button. If you have a company that can genuinely absorb capital it seems to work just fine.
"...prefer a 100% chance of $1 million to a 20% chance of $10 million, while the VCs can afford to be "rational" and prefer the latter"
In that scenario there's still great motivation for the founders to work hard. In the scenario you presented (no money left for founders) that is not the case.
Why didn't you just post a link to VC Squeeze essay if that's all you wanted to say? You're saying some different things and saying other things differently.
Paul and I are describing the same scenario... and that incentive only exists when it looks like there's a possibility for the one in a million payoff. Otherwise Liquidation Preferences mean that even a successful sell results in no return to the founders.
"But being forced to try things more quickly than you might otherwise may help you discover problems and their solutions before others do, like a fast forward button."
I could write code sitting here with a loaded gun on a timer, pointed at my head. I'm sure I would find problems in that code faster and "get it done" faster so that I could reset the timer.... but the code would not be as high quality, and it certainly wouldn't be more innovative.
And if I reached the point where I knew there was no way to get it done in time, then I'd spend the time looking for an exit. I'd have no motivation to get the code done, and a lot of motivation to get out of there.
"I could write code sitting here with a loaded gun on a timer, pointed at my head."
In most startups the proposition is metaphorically identical: succeed before money runs out or die. The kind of intense pressure that exists in all of the competitive startups I've seen. It's a marathon race, not a stroll through the park.
The founders motivation is ownership and the potential payout that ownership provides. If you take so much investment that you can't sell your company for enough to profit from it then you may as well close up shop (which happens frequently).
You're arguing that reducing your chances for success is the only way to succeed. You presume that if you aren't about to die, then you must be lazy. You presume that the only model is unprofitability until someone either buys you or you get shut down.
You presume that reducing the number of scenarios by which a founder will become wealthy somehow motivates the founders more.
You say business should be shut down if they don't fit in the model you describe.
This is a very narrow view. Its also a very polarized view-- it seems to be the perspective that either you're trying to be the next youtube or you're opening a farm.
There really is quite a spectrum between them... and far more high tech successes are not youtube type situations. That's an extreme rarity.
You're locked into a mentality that causes you to repeat this perspective, and you don't seem to be responding to what I'm saying, and I just don't see things that way.
So, I don't see much point in continuing this thread.
The big thing that separates them from the Netscape story is that they're apparently smarter and managed to create a financially successful company. Its quite conceivable that lesser men would have given us Netscape #2.
"You cannot predict the future- you cannot predict the level of success you will have in advance."
But being forced to try things more quickly than you might otherwise may help you discover problems and their solutions before others do, like a fast forward button. If you have a company that can genuinely absorb capital it seems to work just fine.
"...prefer a 100% chance of $1 million to a 20% chance of $10 million, while the VCs can afford to be "rational" and prefer the latter"
In that scenario there's still great motivation for the founders to work hard. In the scenario you presented (no money left for founders) that is not the case.
Why didn't you just post a link to VC Squeeze essay if that's all you wanted to say? You're saying some different things and saying other things differently.