Quotes of All Topics . Occasions . Authors
There's a mathematical way to get success.
We have to support the well-being of society.
Companies that tend to survive are the rebels.
We are trying to build large, lasting businesses.
Everybody in the industry thinks I'm the crazy person.
I want to invest in a functional product that people are using.
Design is more important than technology in most consumer applications.
For the most effective pitch, focus 80% on the problem, 20% on the solution.
I think you'll see a lot more people in the Valley get more involved in politics.
Offline, anything is expensive. Online is much cheaper, usually, to do almost anything.
Everyone has a different definition of risk. Sometimes that creates opportunities as well.
Hottest space that I think is interesting would be education, particularly, like, ages 3-10.
The path to the mountain ahead of you? is not the path you took to the mountain you stand on.
Most of what we do is software, Internet, and mobile. A fair amount of that is transactional.
'Bazillion Dollar Club' follows six struggling startups trying to get their products together.
I won't say that 'shotgun' is the word I'd prefer to use, but we certainly do a lot of investments.
With great power comes great responsibility. These are platforms with hundreds of millions of people.
I figured maybe I had some talent as an investor… since it seemed like I was only a half-assed entrepreneur.
There's this myopia among American venture capitalists to not go anywhere beyond Silicon Valley and New York.
My role has been limited to focus on fiduciary obligations to our investors as a general partner of our funds.
I don't think there's nearly enough interesting ways to do education online, particularly for younger children.
The reason we invest globally is because we think that's where a lot of the growth is happening: around the world.
Entrepreneurship is usually about people executing in the face of other folks telling them that it's not going to work.
I bet on a lot of stuff that's low-priced, and most of it's going to go back down to zero. But some of it's going to go up.
The earlier you invest, the higher that attrition rate is because it's compounded. We have a more scientific method of investment.
Even for a lot of people in the Valley who are more conservative, a lot of them find Trump to be incredibly offensive and a blowhard.
I actually find it's more interesting to play in the niches and find ways to apply technology to relatively straightforward problems.
I think you want to show a level of transparency that breeds trust. You don't want to show a level of desperation that breeds concern.
I aim to combine all the things I do in a comprehensive and holistic fashion that benefits startups and the people who make them grow.
Usually, what I recommend to entrepreneurs is to focus on telling the problem first, about the customer or the person who has that problem.
Food tech has been kind of an area that we have been making a number of investments in. Kind of a big boring industry, but a lot of people eat.
Entrepreneurs usually don't listen to people. Trust them to do their job. Remember, you invested with the understanding the project was likely to fail.
Most firms do two investments a year. They may talk to between 50 and 100 and do a couple, whereas we're talking to thousands and doing several hundred.
There's going to be a Google or a Facebook or a Zynga every three to five years. Those are really big ideas that do return substantial amounts of money.
If you already have some amount of significant traction with customers, either in usage or in revenue, you should very quickly try and get that clearly out.
Wait until companies have an initial prototype, have shown that they have the potential to be profitable and have the ability to scale. That's the best time to invest.
My personal failures aside, 500 has long supported a diverse community of entrepreneurs including women, minorities, LGTBQ, international, and other overlooked founders.
Not everybody wants to be Mark Zuckerberg, but everybody wants to create a little piece of the American dream, the Silicon Valley version. I don't think that's a bad thing.
I don't know if we're doing the optimal things that we can to try and connect different people on the planet with different points of view and not be so angry at each other.
We think that there's a lot of opportunities in helping improve finding food, delivering food, ordering systems, notifications system, and its a very frequent purchase item for a lot of people.
While I'd like to believe that I'm not a bad or evil person, regardless, it's clear that some of my past actions have hurt or offended several women. And I probably deserve to be called a creep.
We often say if you have traction, lead with traction. Talk about specific customers, usage numbers, revenue metrics - anything like that that really is clearly explicit and factual. Get that out in front early.
A bubble in early-stage funding means maybe there's $300 million at work when maybe there should be $150, as opposed to a bubble in late-stage funding which means there's $20 billion at work when there should be $3.
There's been entrepreneurs working in the Valley for probably 50-60 years. It's not to say that you can't create that in other places, but I think people are a little bit impatient about creating the next Silicon Valley.
It's pretty challenging for large funds to spend the time and energy necessary to get a meaningful return when most of the wins coming out are perhaps below $100 million exits and the ones above are very few and far between.
Europe is kind of fragmented. Africa is nascent; we've made a few investments, including four in Egypt. I visit 50-60 cities and 20-25 countries a year. The intent is to be a global fund, which takes time and prioritization.
I made advances towards multiple women in work-related situations, where it was clearly inappropriate. I put people in compromising and inappropriate situations, and I selfishly took advantage of those situations where I should have known better. My behavior was inexcusable and wrong.
There were never as many big businesses as people were piling money into in the late 90's or early 2000's. This is really a lesson to institutional investors about how much capital the market can absorb, and it's a 10-year adjustment cycle, and we're only beginning to wake up to that.
I think 'Shark Tank' is targeting companies that are really trying to raise their very first dollar. A lot of them aren't really tech focused. We're definitely going after companies that are building real technology, either software or hardware, they probably have raised a couple hundred thousand already.
Sometimes, we nerds of technology sort of don't think that the rules necessarily apply to us in the same way, but I think when you produce products that hundreds of millions of people, if not billions of people, are using, we have the same responsibilities as any other person representing the Fourth Estate.