Why There Aren't More Googles

<img src="http://www.virtumundo.com/images/spacer.gif" height=15 width=1> Want to start a startup?

<img src="http://www.virtumundo.com/images/spacer.gif" height=15 width=1> 想要创业吗？

Get funded by Y Combinator .

获得 Y Combinator 的资助。

</td > April 2008 Umair Haque wrote recently that the reason there aren't more Googles is that most startups get bought before they can change the world.

</td> 2008 年 4 月 Umair Haque 最近写道，谷歌之所以没有出现，是因为大多数初创公司在能够改变世界之前就被收购了。

Google, despite serious interest from Microsoft and Yahoo—what must have seemed like lucrative interest at the time—didn't

尽管微软和雅虎对谷歌产生了浓厚的兴趣——这在当时看来是利润丰厚的利益——但并没有

sell out.

卖完了。

Google might simply have been nothing but Yahoo's or MSN's search box.

Google 可能只是 Yahoo 或 MSN 的搜索框。

Why isn't it?

为什么不是呢？

Because Google had a deeply felt sense of purpose: a conviction to change the world for the better.

因为谷歌有一种深深的使命感：让世界变得更美好的信念。

This has a nice sound to it, but it isn't true.

这听起来不错，但事实并非如此。

Google's founders were willing to sell early on.

谷歌的创始人很早就愿意出售。

They just wanted more than acquirers were willing to pay.

他们只是想要超出收购者愿意支付的价格。

It was the same with Facebook.

Facebook 也是如此。

They would have sold, but Yahoo blew it

他们本来可以卖掉，但雅虎搞砸了

by offering too little.

提供太少。

Tip for acquirers: when a startup turns you down, consider raising your offer, because there's a good chance the outrageous price they want will later seem a bargain.

给收购者的提示：当初创公司拒绝你时，请考虑提高你的报价，因为他们想要的离谱价格很有可能后来看起来很便宜。

[ 1 ] From the evidence I've seen so far, startups that turn down acquisition offers usually end up doing better.

[1] 从我迄今为止看到的证据来看，拒绝收购要约的初创公司通常最终会做得更好。

Not always, but usually there's a bigger offer coming, or perhaps even an IPO.

并非总是如此，但通常会出现更大的报价，甚至可能是首次公开募股。

Of course, the reason startups do better when they turn down

当然，这就是初创公司在拒绝时表现更好的原因

acquisition offers is not necessarily that all such offers undervalue startups.

收购要约并不一定意味着所有此类要约都低估了初创公司的价值。

More likely the reason is that the kind of founders who have the balls to turn down a big offer also tend to be very successful.

更可能的原因是，那些有胆量拒绝巨额报价的创始人也往往会非常成功。

That spirit is exactly what you want in a startup.

这种精神正是你在初创公司中想要的。

While I'm sure Larry and Sergey do want to change the world, at least now, the reason Google survived to become a big, independent company is the same reason Facebook has so far remained independent:

虽然我确信拉里和谢尔盖确实想改变世界，至少现在是这样，谷歌幸存下来并成为一家独立的大公司的原因与 Facebook 迄今为止保持独立的原因是一样的：

acquirers underestimated them.

收购者低估了他们。

Corporate M&A is a strange business in that respect.

从这方面来说，企业并购是一项奇怪的业务。

They consistently lose the best deals, because turning down reasonable offers is the most reliable test you could invent for whether a startup will make it big.

他们总是会失去最好的交易，因为拒绝合理的报价是你可以发明的最可靠的测试，以判断一家初创公司能否做大。

VCs So what's the real reason there aren't more Googles?

那么，没有更多谷歌的真正原因是什么？

Curiously enough, it's the same reason Google and Facebook have remained independent: money guys undervalue the most innovative startups.

奇怪的是，这与谷歌和 Facebook 保持独立的原因是一样的：投资人低估了最具创新性的初创公司。

The reason there aren't more Googles is not that investors encourage innovative startups to sell out, but that they won't even fund them.

没有更多谷歌的原因并不是投资者鼓励创新型初创公司出售，而是他们甚至不为它们提供资金。

I've learned a lot about VCs during the 3 years we've been doing Y Combinator, because we often have to work quite closely with them.

在我们从事 Y Combinator 的 3 年里，我学到了很多关于 VC 的知识，因为我们经常需要与他们密切合作。

The most surprising thing I've learned is how conservative they are.

我了解到的最令人惊讶的事情是他们是多么保守。

VC firms present an image of boldly encouraging innovation.

风险投资公司呈现出大胆鼓励创新的形象。

Only a handful actually do, and even they are more conservative in reality than you'd guess from reading their sites.

只有少数人真正这样做，而且即使他们实际上比你从他们的网站上猜测的还要保守。

I used to think of VCs as piratical: bold but unscrupulous.

我曾经认为风险投资是盗版的：大胆但不择手段。

On closer acquaintance they turn out to be more like bureaucrats.

进一步了解后，发现他们更像官僚。

They're more upstanding than I used to think (the good ones, at least), but less bold.

他们比我以前想象的更正直（至少是好的人），但不那么大胆。

Maybe the VC industry has changed.

也许风险投资行业已经发生了变化。

Maybe they used to be bolder.

也许他们以前比较大胆。

But I suspect it's the startup world that has

但我怀疑是创业界

changed, not them.

改变了，而不是他们。

The low cost of starting a startup means the average good bet is a riskier one, but most existing VC firms still operate as if they were investing in hardware startups in 1985.

创办一家初创公司的成本较低，这意味着好的投资通常风险较高，但大多数现有风险投资公司的运作方式仍然像 1985 年投资硬件初创公司一样。

Howard Aiken said "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas.

霍华德·艾肯说：“不要担心人们窃取你的想法。

If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." I have a similar feeling when I'm trying to convince VCs to invest in startups Y Combinator has funded.

如果你的想法很好，你就必须把它们强行灌输给人们。”当我试图说服风投投资 Y Combinator 资助的初创公司时，我也有类似的感觉。

They're terrified

他们很害怕

of really novel ideas, unless the founders are good enough salesmen to compensate.

真正新颖的想法，除非创始人是足够优秀的推销员来弥补。

But it's the bold ideas that generate the biggest returns.

但只有大胆的想法才能产生最大的回报。

Any really good new idea will seem bad to most people; otherwise someone would already be doing it.

任何真正好的新想法对大多数人来说都会显得很糟糕；不然早就有人在这么做了。

And yet most VCs are driven by consensus, not just within their firms, but within the VC community.

然而，大多数风险投资公司都是由共识驱动的，不仅是在他们的公司内部，而且是在风险投资社区内部。

The biggest factor determining how a VC will feel about your startup is how other VCs feel about it.

决定风险投资家对你的初创公司的看法的最大因素是其他风险投资家对它的看法。

I

我

doubt they realize it, but this algorithm guarantees they'll miss all the very best ideas.

怀疑他们是否意识到这一点，但这种算法保证他们会错过所有最好的想法。

The more people who have to like a new idea, the more outliers you lose.

越多的人必须喜欢一个新想法，你失去的异常值就越多。

Whoever the next Google is, they're probably being told right now by VCs to come back when they have more "traction." Why are VCs so conservative?

无论下一个谷歌是谁，风险投资家现在可能会告诉他们，当他们有更多“吸引力”时，就会回来。为什么VC如此保守？

It's probably a combination of factors.

这可能是多种因素的结合。

The large size of their investments makes them conservative.

他们的投资规模巨大，使他们变得保守。

Plus they're investing other people's money, which makes them worry they'll get in trouble if they do something risky and it fails.

另外，他们用别人的钱进行投资，这让他们担心，如果他们做了一些冒险的事情并且失败了，他们会遇到麻烦。

Plus most of them are money guys rather than technical guys, so they don't understand what the startups they're investing in do.

而且他们中的大多数人都是资金人而不是技术人，所以他们不明白他们所投资的初创公司是做什么的。

What's Next The exciting thing about market economies is that stupidity equals opportunity.

下一步是什么 市场经济的令人兴奋之处在于，愚蠢等于机会。

And so it is in this case.

本案也是如此。

There is a huge, unexploited

这里有一个巨大的、未开发的

opportunity in startup investing.

创业投资的机会。

Y Combinator funds startups at the very beginning.

Y Combinator 从一开始就为初创公司提供资金。

VCs will fund them once they're already starting to succeed.

一旦他们开始取得成功，风险投资就会为他们提供资金。

But between the two there is a substantial gap.

但两者之间存在着很大的差距。

There are companies that will give $20k to a startup that has nothing more than the founders, and there are companies that will give $2 million to a startup that's already taking off, but there aren't enough investors who will give $200k to a startup

有些公司会向一家只有创始人的初创公司提供 2 万美元，有些公司会向一家已经起飞的初创公司提供 200 万美元，但没有足够的投资者愿意向一家初创公司提供 20 万美元

that seems very promising but still has some things to figure out.

这看起来很有希望，但仍有一些事情需要解决。

This territory is occupied mostly by individual angel investors—people like Andy Bechtolsheim, who gave Google $100k when they seemed promising but still had some things to figure out.

这个领域主要由个人天使投资人占据，比如安迪·贝托尔斯海姆 (Andy Bechtolsheim)，当谷歌看起来很有前途但仍然有一些事情需要解决时，他给了谷歌 10 万美元。

I like angels, but there just aren't enough of them, and investing is for most of them a part time job.

我喜欢天使，但天使数量还不够，投资对于他们中的大多数人来说只是一份兼职工作。

And yet as it gets cheaper to start startups, this sparsely occupied

然而，随着创办初创公司的成本越来越低，这个人烟稀少的地方

territory is becoming more and more valuable.

领土变得越来越有价值。

Nowadays a lot of startups don't want to raise multi-million dollar series A rounds.

如今，许多初创公司不想筹集数百万美元的 A 轮融资。

They don't need that much money, and they don't want the hassles that come with it.

他们不需要那么多钱，也不希望随之而来的麻烦。

The median startup coming out of Y Combinator wants to raise $250-500k.

Y Combinator 中的初创公司希望筹集 250-50 万美元。

When they go to VC firms they have to ask for more because they know VCs aren't interested in such small deals.

当他们去风险投资公司时，他们必须要求更多，因为他们知道风险投资对如此小的交易不感兴趣。

VCs are money managers.

风险投资家是资金管理者。

They're looking for ways to put large sums

他们正在寻找投入大笔资金的方法

to work.

去工作。

But the startup world is evolving away from their current model.

但初创企业的世界正在远离当前的模式。

Startups have gotten cheaper.

初创公司变得更便宜。

That means they want less money, but also that there are more of them.

这意味着他们想要的钱更少，但他们的钱也更多。

So you can still get large returns on large amounts of money; you just have to spread it more broadly.

所以你仍然可以获得大笔资金的丰厚回报；你只需要更广泛地传播它。

I've tried to explain this to VC firms.

我试图向风险投资公司解释这一点。

Instead of making one $2 million investment, make five $400k investments.

不要进行一项 200 万美元的投资，而是进行五项 40 万美元的投资。

Would that mean

这是否意味着

sitting on too many boards?

坐在太多董事会上？

Don't sit on their boards.

不要坐在他们的董事会上。

Would that mean too much due diligence?

这是否意味着过多的尽职调查？

Do less.

少做一点。

If you're investing at a tenth the valuation, you only have to be a tenth as sure.

如果您以估值的十分之一进行投资，那么您只需确定为十分之一即可。

It seems obvious.

这似乎是显而易见的。

But I've proposed to several VC firms that they set aside some money and designate one partner to make more, smaller bets, and they react as if I'd proposed the partners all get nose rings.

但我向几家风险投资公司提议，他们拨出一些资金，指定一位合伙人进行更多、更小的赌注，他们的反应就好像我建议合伙人都戴鼻环一样。

It's remarkable how wedded they are to their standard m.o.

值得注意的是，他们对自己的标准作风是多么执着。

But there is a big opportunity here, and one way or the other it's going to get filled.

但这里有一个巨大的机会，而且无论如何它都会被填补。

Either VCs will evolve down into this gap or, more likely, new investors will appear to fill it.

风险投资公司要么会逐渐缩小这一差距，要么更有可能的是，新投资者将填补这一空白。

That will be a good thing when it happens, because these new investors will be compelled by the structure of the investments they make to be ten times bolder than present day VCs.

当这种情况发生时，这将是一件好事，因为这些新投资者将被他们所进行的投资结构所吸引，其投资结构比当今的风险投资公司大胆十倍。

And that will get us a lot more Googles.

这将为我们带来更多的谷歌。

At least, as long as acquirers remain stupid.

至少，只要收购者保持愚蠢。