
What I Look for In Tech Startups - jkuria
http://blog.capitalandgrowth.org/chris-devore/
======
mathattack
_G &G: A hotly debated question in the tech investor community is, “What is
the single most important factor for startup success?” Some say it’s the team.
Some say it’s the product/market fit. Others say it’s timing. Obviously, all
three are important, but if picked one single factor, which would it be?

Chris: I’d say opportunity is the most important. I often meet talented
entrepreneurs who put an incredible amount of time and effort into solving
problems that ultimately lack real market opportunity.

It’s a waste of their talents. I’d roll back on the team that’s doing
something unproductive because it’s an awesome team. I will bet on an
exceptional team if they’re doing something productive. By that hierarchy, the
opportunity is first, people the second._

I've heard this from quite a few VCs. The difference between a good and great
engineer is 10x. The difference between a good and bad market is 100x.

~~~
danieltillett
There are a lot more great teams than billion dollar ideas. I wrote an essay
on this topic a few years ago [0].

0\. [https://www.tillett.info/2015/12/18/execution-is-just-the-
mu...](https://www.tillett.info/2015/12/18/execution-is-just-the-multiplier-
of-ideas/)

~~~
scardine
Ideas are always priced in hindsight - you can't say it is a billion dollar
idea until a business is built around it. For all practical purposes there are
no billion dollar ideas, just billion dollar business.

~~~
danieltillett
Yes, of course an idea is only a billion dollar idea once it is built out, but
a good team is also only determined in hindsight too.

More importantly, while some ideas have the potential to be billion dollar
ideas, most don't. The ideas that have a reasonable chance of being billion
dollar ideas are very rare, much rarer than teams that have the same
potential.

------
orliesaurus
Not to sound like an asshole but we've read this type of "interviews with VCs"
at least weekly lately...and they ALL say the same stuff over and over. Its
all "great founders", "great market", "great team" dreamy stories.

~~~
austinjp
Unfortunately I agree. I strongly suspect investors exhibit survivor bias, and
assume causation where there is none. That's not to say it's all luck, or that
they're dumb. Instead I feel they're simply unconsciously expert: they don't
actually know what makes them good at what they do. Asking them how they do it
elicits guesses. The fact that the guesses all sound the same suggests that
either they're true, or there's an echo-chamber.

There was a link posted here some months ago where an investor gave a frank
account of how hard it is to invest, and how frequently he made terrible
decisions and got burned, how time consuming it was, and so on. I think he
actually said "don't become an investor if you want to make money, do it
because you want to help people". Shame I can't find it now.

~~~
pascalxus
This reminds of the story Stevie Yeggie wrote about teaching a Chicken to play
the piano.

He had the chicken peck at the piano, and everytime it hit the correct key,
someone would give it pellet. By this method, the chicken could memorize how
to play a simple melody. But, one day, the chicken introduced a random foot
kick along with a correct key peck. The pellet still needed to be given to the
chicken to reinforce the melody. Ever since then, the chicken kept pecking at
the keys with a foot kick.

------
CalChris
> Everybody focuses on patents and the tech, yet tech matters less and less.

Then why is he talking about what he looks for in _Tech Startups?_ It doesn't
seem that he's looking for _Tech_ Startups at all. Plenty of other kinds of
startups than tech startups.

~~~
comstock
Tech, as used by investors no longer really means technology. It means a
website essentially.

It would rarely (in my experience) even encompass hardware. Certainly nothing
requiring novel basic technology (science based startups).

I don’t know why terminology is used like this. Essentially it’s like saying
mail order catalogs are technology companies because they take advantage of
advances in printing, telecommunications etc.

I guess it’s because the process of building websites is still messy, and
somewhat easy to get wrong.

~~~
CalChris
He definitely used the word _patents_. So I really think he means new
technology when he says tech rather than websites, deployment, logistics, ....

~~~
comstock
Well, he uses the word patents in a context which suggests he doesn’t care
much about patents...

The examples cited in the article are mostly websites. And I think (given the
title of the article) he would describe himself as a tech investor.

In any case, what investors say isn’t as important as what they do. In my
experience they often say they are interested in Biotech, Science based
startups, or hardware. The reality is they rarely invest, and when they do,
they invest in very conversative plays (aside from the occasional misguided
Theranos type play).

The reality is in general tech to then means “some kind of website where I
understand the engagement metrics” most of the time.

------
hguhghuff
Sorry inappropriate deleted.

~~~
dang
Please don't post like this to HN. It just repeats the repetitive, which is
most of what we're trying to avoid here.

Edit: you've unfortunately posted a lot of unsubstantive comments to Hacker
News. Would you please just not do that? We're hoping for either civil,
substantive comments, or no comments.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

