Hey
@OllieB
Excellent post a little blunt for my liking but hey ! job well done.
Here is a favourite story of mine from the VC world. I have heard it as a second narration so bear with me.
A friend of a friend (
Mr A) had just written a paper of utilizing distributed computation and the whole concept of utilizing "unused CPU" over the internet was gaining a lot of momentum. This was back in the dot com bubble. You can still "
Donate" your CPU if you wanted to today.
There were a few start-ups that were being funded to bring to life an age old concept of resource sharing and one of the VC's in US asked Mr A to look into a company that was looking for seed money. Stripped down to a layman's proposal the company was offering to develop a method of doing computation over the internet from users provided the latency of the connection dropped below a certain threshold. In short the internet got faster !
In and around the height of the dot com bubble - the company projected that they will become cash flow positive in 2004 because the latency of the connection would be enough to justify the operation.
The only fault as Mr A pointed out was that the hypothesis was projecting that the communication would become faster than the speed of light.
Mr A pointed this out to the VC. The VC invested 10 millions anyway.
The company went bankrupt shortly.
If one looks closely at the 1PG offerings and the "disruptive" nature of their offerings - one begins to see some fundamental gaps (Not the ones on the chart) that one must realize point to the unicorn blooms in the Australian tech sector.
Sam Altman - Along with Paul and others who run the Ycombinator wrote an excellent post on
the tech bust of 2015.
In US the market is more knowledge bound , but in AU where the retail mum and dad are struggling to run their home printers the selling of the story via loosely using words that signify exponential growth is becoming common.
The paragraph makes sense in relation to 1PG
HTML:
It also often makes the company think of itself as much bigger than it is, and do the wrong things for its actual stage. Finally, too much cheap money lets companies operate with bad unit economics and cover up all sorts of internal problems. So I think many companies are hurting themselves with access to easy capital.
Talking about good concepts - the future of HR is most likely to come from disruptive tech that is niche to individual sector.
Interviewing coders/Engineers is far different from interviewing a onsite mechanic.
However, the ones dismissing any objective argument against their company are more likely going to learn either a very expensive lesson in valuing a tech start-up or are more likely to shy away from tech investing in the future.
I concur with your assessment.
