Slashdot Mirror
Google's Not Investing in Young Startups Anymore (qz.com)
GV, the division of Alphabet, is no longer investing in startups that are at their nascent stage. According to data from research firm CB Insights, GV completed no seed-stage deals in the first half of this year, down from 10 such deals last year. That represented a 77% drop from the number of deals it did in 2014. Quartz reports (edited and condensed): GV's former chief executive and co-founder, Bill Maris, who stepped down earlier this month, told the Wall Street Journal in December that he was cutting fewer checks at the seed stage because he thought that market was overheated. He also said that he was mystified by the reluctance of some portfolio companies to avoid a stock market flotation. "They would benefit from the rigor and discipline that the public market requires," he said.
Headline: Google’s not investing in young startups anymore
First sentence: GV has all but stopped investing in startups at their most nascent stage.
mystified by the reluctance of some portfolio companies to avoid a stock market flotation. "They would benefit from the rigor and discipline that the public market requires," he said.
Maybe an idea which needs a year to properly develop an idea is justifiably afraid of quarterly meddling at the beginning.
That's discipline to avoid that short term trap
"They would benefit from the rigor and discipline that the public market requires,"
If I'm trying to get a business off the ground, the last thing I want to be worried about is people probing around every square inch of my operation doing due diligence, SEC regulations, having to impress shareholders, having one piece of bad news or a missed earnings call tank my entire business overnight, etc. The scrutiny that comes with being a public company is absolutely not worth it in many cases.
GV, the division of Alphabet, is no longer investing in startups that are at their nascent stage.
It seems like it should be:
GV, a division of Alphabet, is no longer investing in startups that are at their nascent stage.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Hate being the devil's advocate, but what is there to invest in? More malware/spyware/analytics? More invasive ads? More monitoring users, assuming they happily give up their privacy for nothing? Another useless app, joining one of many that asks for every permission under the sun? Another photoediting app?
That's why they're named "Alphabet" and not "Numerals"
Given we've read a number of recent stories where Google/Alphabet has been cutting ties with acquisitions that can't turn a short term profit (e.g. Boston Dynamics), I'm rather puzzled as to how a Google employee would be "mystified by the reluctance of some portfolio companies to avoid a stock market flotation". You'd think he'd be intimately familiar with the reasoning.
#DeleteChrome
45 deals in 2014, 10 in 2015
45-10=35
35/45=0.7777
Maybe it's actually reading comprehension that's hard? It's a story problem...
"He also said that he was mystified by the reluctance of some portfolio companies to avoid a stock market flotation."
"Reluctance to avoid" to me means that they want to do a stock market floatation, then he says...
"They would benefit from the rigor and discipline that the public market requires,"
Which implies the first sentence should have been: "He also said that he was mystified by the reluctance of some portfolio companies to WANT TO DO a stock market flotation."
Is it just me confused?
1 - 10 / 45 = 0.7777...
> "They would benefit from the rigor and discipline that the public market requires,"
Public floats do not add rigor and discipline. The market is herd out to make a short term buck. Instead of producing awesome tech, the goal becomes looking for a CEO who can convince the herd to buy his stock so they can take their golden parachute and jump. Traders don't even care what they're trading in. Day Traders are a classic example.
A public float is pushed by Google because that's how they cash in, but for the innovators it's a huge distraction, risks losing their best staff who cash in their options and leave, and which adds nothing of value to the business. Yes a bricks and mortar chain can use cash for a expansion, but tech scales in a way bricks and mortar don't.
After a float, it's no longer the founders business. It's someone else's. Not working for someone else is why people start their own companies in the first place.
overheated = Google are cheap bastards who are upset their targets won't sell out for the chickenfeed they're paying.
he was mystified by the reluctance of some portfolio companies to avoid a stock market flotation
Maybe some people have wised up to the fact that market valuations are completely artificial -- they are numbers picked out of the air, and being listed on the stock market places you at the mercy of mass psychology, media spin, gross subjectivity, market volatility, and trading algorithms that solely exist to milk profits from the market.
Microsoft Anniversary
Google
Microsoft patch
Twitter
Hackers
hackers
More Russian Hackers might be Guccifer 3.0
Google
NASA discovery of a star
Microsoft
Ask Slashdot: What torrent sites do YOU USE? :) :) :) :)
fuck you.
10 deals in first half of 2015, 0 deals in first half of 2016. (10-0)/10 = 1. 100% drop!
Which, given a little thought, tells you that they've completed no deals in 2016; 10 deals in 2015; and 45 deals in 2014. The word 'that' at the start of the second sentence could be considered to be a reference to an unclear antecedent: does 'that' refer to 'down from 10 such deals' or does it refer to '10 such deals last year'? Given that the former interpretation makes the summary nonsense, by the principal of charity, the best way to interpret the summary is that '10 deals last year represented a 77% drop from the number of deals in 2014.'
Google shitcans most of their projects and acquisitions anyways, so maybe this is a good thing.
that's daily startup life over here. no investors to be seen.