In fact doing meaningful research is an anti-pattern if you want to get hyperscale growth.
R&D startups have proven that the only thing in their future is an acquisition (using Cruise as your example).
R&D startups have proven that the only thing in their future is an acquisition (using Cruise as your example).
Again, if we define startup as "Growing company in search of a business model" then fusion energy falls completely outside of that.
You don't get "hyperscale" growth with science (biotech) or infrastructure projects (fusion energy). I'm unaware of any biotech startups that have grown to hyperscale. Genentech is the only giant biotech company I'm aware of and it was started 40 years ago and acquired before any kind of hyperscaling like you see with software startups.
Once you get that much going on, nobody can launch it all anyway. If you could, Thos Edison's lab or Bell Labs would have probably scaled most hyperly themselves.
As a technology marketer, I think you should have much more technology that you are not selling compared to what you are promising to deliver.
Even better if you can just keep the technology coming to delight customers more so as you go along.
Sometimes a highly scaled startup seems to define itself as an unsolved problem where there is exponential uptake begging for a solution. If someone can figure it out.
>I'm unaware of any biotech startups that have grown to hyperscale.
Genzyme[0] comes to mind, founded in 1981, went public in 1986 (raising 28.2 million [1]). It was acquiring other companies, building manufacturing plants at a pretty fast pace. Not sure if you would call it hyperscale.
What do you think about companies like spacex or tesla which are science heavy?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genzyme
[1]: http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/genzyme-cor...