The Silicon Valley VC Disease

Scoble writes like Steve Gillmor with smaller words. I'm not sure what the point of this article is. The whole point of Venture Capital is to invest in small companies and grow them to a point where they can raise more money through other means - typically IPOs or acquisition. That they're failing badly is more about the US economy than some "VC disease."<p>So I guess what he wants is for investors to invest bucket loads of money for decades on promises and hot air. Or he wants someone to subsidize iphone usage...<p>My favorite part, though, is when he starts touting long dead products (Visicalc, Pagemaker) as examples of the kind of success that comes from a long term perspective.

What the hell is he talking about? VCs routinely fund companies that don't have a business model or any near-term path to making "buckets of money". Twitter being a great example.

<i>"you gotta build apps for mainframes and DEC’s, because that’s where the market is, not in that Apple II toy."</i><p>faulty comparison<p>"He forgets that the small, seemingly unimportant platform today that gets early adopters excited will become the large, dominant platform of tomorrow. It might take 10 years, though, which is too long for VCs to care about."<p>lets get real, the only thing that makes iPhone somewhat better (in some cases) is the UI. Where is the difficulty others making similar UI?

I think Scoble has 20/20 hindsight disease:<p><i>... the small, seemingly unimportant platform today that gets early adopters excited will become the large, dominant platform of tomorrow ... How long did it take Visicalc to happen on the Apple II? Or Aldus Pagemaker to happen on the Mac?</i><p>Most of promising technologies doesn't become dominant. For one thing, there are many small, seemingly unimportant platforms, but only one can dominate.<p>But I like his 5 reasons for targeting a nascent platform. Even if its market stays small, for a DHHian business, that may be right-size. Assuming it endures...

Scoble doesn't know anything about VC. They are just the middlemen, they need to report back to their investor. Do you think they risk funding you and take the heat explaining to their investors?<p>I can criticize bill gates for not investing in my dog breeding business becuase it could get bigger, and keep on whinning, but what is the point?

The article seems to boil down to timeframe and the idea VCs want to make money now. (nothing new there)<p>If you really are passionate about and believe in what you are doing, you'll do it anyway even if the market/segment is "small".<p>Small markets can often be the most lucrative (loyal, willing to pay more, etc.), especially if people love the products you make.<p>There is nothing wrong in making apps <i>just</i> for the iPhone etc., people like Tapulous are doing well by it.

Apple, liking to preserve quality don't allow clones. With iPhone cloning, the VCs would see a market, and this is an issue: to clone or not to clone?

Curiously, Scobledober's blog is mostly unreadable without Javascript.