franciscomello

Marc Andreessen says: "You can always feel when product/market fit isn't happening. The customers aren't quite getting value out of the product, word of mouth isn't spreading, usage isn't growing that fast, press reviews are kind of "blah", the sales cycle takes too long, and lots of deals never close." Yet, if you survey 100 SAP - or Oracle - customers, 99 will behave exactly like that; they don't even like the product; end-users hate them; there are no killer features; etc etc etc.

How can I solve this mental conundrum?

Should a startup spend resources refactoring code before p/m fit is achieved? Or should it spend its resources turning out features to win prospective customers?

This Alphabet transaction/reorg. got me thinking:

Why should any investor pay a multiple (expensive, by the way) and get exposure to Google Ventures/Google Capital/Google's other crazy ideas, when he/she can just invest in Sequoia, A16Z, KKR, and other VC, growth equity, or private equity managers at book value?

Other than Google Search/You Tube (what'll be under the new Google CEO), it's basically a bunch of VC-like bets right? Does Google have any great track record that would make an investor consider "buying shares in its VC fund at a multiple"?

Would love to hear some opinions on this theme.