The product potential and the funding make it seem like this is a bunch of insider baseball going on here. This is something I feel I could build in a few months, let alone require 20 people. Aside from all the jargon about these researchers, what's special? I'm not sure users actually care about some interesting insights some professors have because how does it manifest in the app? Color me skeptical.
It's the largest streaming site in the world and could possibly be making 10 figures / year. YouTube isn't dishing out money just because they are really nice people.
Does anyone really think the textbooks in the US are showing the barbarism our country is displaying right now - let alone 70 years ago?
Civilian casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan (in the 7 figures) would bring war crimes indictments to the leaders of other nations. Indiscriminate drone attacks in multiple countries have killed hundreds of children. You can call everyone a terrorist but I think its fair to say being under 12 years old should exempt you from being murdered.
Let me make my point more crisp if it isn't clear - the worse war crimes committed by the US, French, British, Russian...etc are not Chapter 1 in the textbooks of their own nations.
Does anyone know if these types of $100M numbers are actually true? I think it makes a great headline but wouldn't everyone at senior ranks get packages like this making it unsustainable?
What flashes through my mind when I see this type of corporate fetish, even it being Google, is that the future is much more likely to be version of Brave New World than 1984.
We consume not because we're told to, but because we want to. We become vehicles in an economic equation.
Something is unnerving about the fact so many of us feel privileged to have the ability to dedicate our lives to what is essentially an organization to make money. I know it stikes odd to think that's the only purpose of Google (it seems not to be) but it certainly is for a significant portion of the corporatocracy.
Those two factors combined (variables in an economic equation and we have blind faith in corporations) can undermine the basis of a free society whose goals go beyond the enrichment of a handful of shareholders.
I'm skeptical of Lightbank. Taking an investment is a pretty serious relationship and not much in the Lefkofsky or Keywell's history implies these are the type of people you want to get married to.
Although this girl might be arrested today, this general trend (growing accessibility to information) will show more and more people that there is a world beyond their immediate experience and what they are being told by people like Bal is false. Bal Thackeray was a bigot. He sought and exploited communal tensions and it's a shame that one can't openly criticize such a reprehensible person. Furthermore, his party Shiv Sena "operates as a network of street gangs" and is holds ideology which isn't far from the Tea Party in America.
The problem is these guys themselves think they are awesome. They are not. Case in point: they came back to TechCrunch because they were failures without it.
These guys are really bad for the startup ecosystem because they are not intellectual and move the focus from the story/startup to themselves.
Now this is good work if you can get it. $12m talent acquisition and then he quits in 3 months.
Maybe im just not a valley insider but what exactly has Kevin done that was successful? I'm not trying to be critical here, just don't see what warrants the hype around him.
Unfortunately its not about the desire for the SEC todo their job, its ability.
New top-grads in finance (and highly sought after performers) go to work at large banks simply based on incentive structures. The SEC is out gunned from the get-go.
Its not listed but tech stocks like apple and google hover around 15-20 P/E. That means that the FB has to grow their earnings so their P/E ratio ends up being in line with the industry or their stock falls. I.e. either Price moves or Earnings move. This doesn't happen immediately - right now LinkedIn is around 1,000- but the market or company needs to correct itself overtime. While its "correcting" that means earnings will go up w/o the price doing the same thing. That means as a current shareholder, lots of future value accretion has already been priced in (i.e. the stock wont rise like Google or Apple in the last 10 years, which was being fueled by increased earnings). Of course P/E is only 1 metric, but its a really important one.
This IPO is based as much as the 'dream' of what FB can be than what it is.
Here's something to think about: FB investments pre-IPO: $2.4 Billion, Google investments pre-IPO: $25MM. Google's IPO was much smaller ($25B market cap if I recall) but Google was financially a stronger company when it went public.
Therefore cue music and grandiose mission statements. Wait, Facebook will get to that 18 P/E ratio when?
This is a classic case of someone who doesn't realize that their own situation is not everyone's situation. Not everyone comes to the valley as a cofounder of a company that becomes a $100B+ phenomena. Here's a clue: they didn't invest in Asan because of you - but because of Facebook.
I wonder what Dustin would have to say in an alternate universe where he was just another Harvard CS grad.
What YC is doing is opening up entrepreneurship to a whole new group of people - who might be just as competent as you - but don't want to work for you.
Also, I think what type of 'impact' I make is something I'll decide for myself. Working for your companies is not what I think is the best thing to do with my 1 and only life.