It would be interesting to get a caricaturists take on this if this is how they see people before they draw them. Also, if they knew of this optical illusion before it was published.
A great example of technology disrupting existing practices in a very niche area. How do spy agencies recruit today for clandestine operations with so many people on or were on Facebook. Isn't that a lot of people who can blow an operators cover, or find the information on Facebook someone?
I think this comes into the "You don't find a technical cofounder, you earn one." category. And trying to get a programmer to build this for you without even giving them founder recognition or founder shares is absurd. No one will work for the biz guy who wants to outsource all the work for meaningless amounts of the company. As a Biz guy, the person who holds the biggest share of our company is our technical co-founder.
I'd like to see a list of who was asking for such private information. It would make people think twice about applying to those companies in the future.
He only looks at companies from trusted sources so finding those sources and having their ears leads to grabbing his attention. How does someone get on Ron's radar when they aren't in the valley? Is it a stretch to assume he has sources coming from outside the valley as well?
I guess I was looking to see if there could be a more direct approach to it. Your pension fund invests in multiple assets classes and in multiple industries because of diversification. With a mutual fund that strictly invests in startups individuals with small amounts of money could gain access to the startup market in a direct way but still with professional money management. It essentially would be a VC fund composed of retail investors where traditional VC funds are composed of institutional (pension funds, etc) and high net worth individuals.
You're right that there won't be another Facebook. Just as there hasn't been another Microsoft or Google. But thinking that there isn't going to be anymore large up and coming companies that change the competitive landscape is false. It'd be like saying in the 1800's that now that railways have drastically changed everything there won't be any new railways game changers. There wasn't much development/change in railways, but it was something new called airplanes that changed everything.
So creating a fund that has a clear investment strategy of investing in a particular startup. How about creating mutual funds that invest in startups in general. It'd allow for diversification of multiple startups and give founders one concentrated voice. That way retail investors can get exposure to startups as venture funds are beyond this investor class.
If so many apps do this, why all of the sudden uproar with Path doing the same? I'm not condoning it, just curious why it still happens and so frequently. It seems to me that the "industry best practices" actually need to be best practice.