Oh, totally: the VCs were smart enough to see that Google was different enough that both KPCB and Sequoia went in 50/50 on the first $25MM round. And Google had a totally failed monetization strategy (their intranet search appliances, of which they sold a single one, to RedHat) before Sergey and Larry capitulated to allow advertising on SERPs. Google needed the VC money to survive until AdWords finally delivered a coherent monetization strategy.
It's a little sad that someone with so much good analysis of the NVCA's overreaching had to throw in a jab so easily refutable.
Comments
Oh, totally: the VCs were smart enough to see that Google was different enough that both KPCB and Sequoia went in 50/50 on the first $25MM round. And Google had a totally failed monetization strategy (their intranet search appliances, of which they sold a single one, to RedHat) before Sergey and Larry capitulated to allow advertising on SERPs. Google needed the VC money to survive until AdWords finally delivered a coherent monetization strategy.
It's a little sad that someone with so much good analysis of the NVCA's overreaching had to throw in a jab so easily refutable.
I agree, it's superfluous and undermines his case.
This is interesting:
their intranet search appliances, of which they sold a single one, to RedHat
I knew their appliance business wasn't that big, but is that really true? How do you know it?
It's false. I worked for a company that owned one and was not named RedHat.