The fund will focus primarily on companies seeking seed funding and early stage funding, and Google Ventures will have the ability to make investments ranging from tens of thousands to "several tens of millions" of dollars, Maris said.
The seed part in the "tens of thousands" sounds a lot like YC.
It would make sense for google to make sure that companies it buys are doing it the google way. I think they have learned from jotspot and jaiku that it is probably better to get in earlier rather than rewrite the entire system to fit on their infrastructure.
I certainly would be hesitant to just email them a business plan...While Google itself might not "steal ideas"; What's to prevent an engineer at Google from culling through great ideas and starting up his/her own company?
These concerns are overblown. Reminder: Ideas are worthless. Implementation matters. Business plans are dime a dozen.
Furthermore google knows that such an event would kill their credibility as a VC instantly and hurt the Google brand as a whole due to the motto violation.
I can't think of an idea or business-plan that could possibly be worth that risk, therefor I assume google will take proper care of confidentiality.
I've been reading comments on the Google Ventures launch on HN, TechCrunch, CNet and others........the general tone is ugly. Why is it that Google was beloved as a young, underdog company but after it achieves what we all strive for....true global impact....people become skeptics and, almost, root for their demise? Human nature or something more?
Simple answer: absolute power corrupts absolutely.
We all like the cool kids from Google. What is starting to scare some (and soon more) is the power that Google has. With no counter-powers. Google needs to think about a better, more sustainable, implementation of their do-no-evil brand.
Having an ombudsman, at the VP level, to which any "citizen" can go and object, would be a start. Think of it as the supreme court of Googlers. With transparent complaints and answers from humans.
It would cost a little bit of money, but it would go a long way to building long-term trust in the company. If Google doesn't come up with their own counter-power, someone else eventually will and Google won't like it!
Well, in theory we already have the counterweight, it's called government and it's supposed to protect us from evildoers.
In practice our governments are unfortunately struggling to adapt to this whole "globalization" thing where multi-national corporations are alarmingly ahead in most regards.
So far not many of the corps have abused their power in truly damaging ways (apart from evading taxes and the occassional uncomfortable law) but I do agree that this is a worrying tendency. It might even be part of the cause for the current meltdown.
But in the longterm I'm actually less worried about google here. Not because of their motto but simply because they're a rather small fish when you compare them to some of the energy-multis who operate at petrodollar scales.
An Ombudsman at every large corp is not the solution either way. That would just become another sock puppet on their salary-list.
The only cure seems to be global regulation of the financial sector - a subject that you don't hear much about in the middle of all these bailout discussions...
A lot of people would be dumb to pitch to Google in the idea phase. If you're a first time founder without a convincing, working (and probably already with users) prototype or some really, really convincing connections your email is going to go straight into the circular file.
The "steal my idea" thing is one of those notions that makes sense until you're out there for a little while. I worried about it too until I realized, wait, nobody cares. A lot of good ideas seem to only look good in retrospect.
Google, "We're building better search." "Uh, huh. Yeah. You do that. Graphs you say? Dweebs."
Microsoft, "We're building a commodity operating system." "Without a computer? Why?"
Facebook, "We're starting a social network for college students." "Uhm, like MySpace?"
YC provide the capital they do to cover only the most necessary expenses. For many people there are other ways to raise that amount of cash if you really needed to. (Probably not glamorous ways, but you could likely get there).
It's not exactly apples and oranges, but to focus on the cash kind of misses the point of what YC is about, and what it really offers.
I'd like to believe that Google entering the space is a good thing, and I do, but I believe the focus in the article on the $100m is kind of irrelevant.
How much of that is Google really going to invest at seed stage? And with what ventures?
I had both feelings of initial excitement and concern. My concept might be 'perfect' for a Google property, but that becomes a double-edged sword. Sure, GVentures will not want to get a rep for stealing ideas from submissions, but it's not about intent. It's always been the main reason I wouldn't be concerned so much about NDAs with VCs is that they're really not in the position to implement at the drop of a dime, or effectively weave key parts into an existing project. Google on the other hand... Hmmm.
15 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 54.0 ms ] threadThe fund will focus primarily on companies seeking seed funding and early stage funding, and Google Ventures will have the ability to make investments ranging from tens of thousands to "several tens of millions" of dollars, Maris said.
The seed part in the "tens of thousands" sounds a lot like YC.
Google has pretty much established itself as "anything goes" company. So no matter what you pitch, you'd worry about them stealing your idea.
And why should Google back someone like you with no connections/traction etc, if they have plenty of resources to implement your idea on their own.
Furthermore google knows that such an event would kill their credibility as a VC instantly and hurt the Google brand as a whole due to the motto violation.
I can't think of an idea or business-plan that could possibly be worth that risk, therefor I assume google will take proper care of confidentiality.
I've been reading comments on the Google Ventures launch on HN, TechCrunch, CNet and others........the general tone is ugly. Why is it that Google was beloved as a young, underdog company but after it achieves what we all strive for....true global impact....people become skeptics and, almost, root for their demise? Human nature or something more?
We all like the cool kids from Google. What is starting to scare some (and soon more) is the power that Google has. With no counter-powers. Google needs to think about a better, more sustainable, implementation of their do-no-evil brand.
Having an ombudsman, at the VP level, to which any "citizen" can go and object, would be a start. Think of it as the supreme court of Googlers. With transparent complaints and answers from humans.
It would cost a little bit of money, but it would go a long way to building long-term trust in the company. If Google doesn't come up with their own counter-power, someone else eventually will and Google won't like it!
In practice our governments are unfortunately struggling to adapt to this whole "globalization" thing where multi-national corporations are alarmingly ahead in most regards.
So far not many of the corps have abused their power in truly damaging ways (apart from evading taxes and the occassional uncomfortable law) but I do agree that this is a worrying tendency. It might even be part of the cause for the current meltdown.
But in the longterm I'm actually less worried about google here. Not because of their motto but simply because they're a rather small fish when you compare them to some of the energy-multis who operate at petrodollar scales.
An Ombudsman at every large corp is not the solution either way. That would just become another sock puppet on their salary-list.
The only cure seems to be global regulation of the financial sector - a subject that you don't hear much about in the middle of all these bailout discussions...
The "steal my idea" thing is one of those notions that makes sense until you're out there for a little while. I worried about it too until I realized, wait, nobody cares. A lot of good ideas seem to only look good in retrospect.
Google, "We're building better search." "Uh, huh. Yeah. You do that. Graphs you say? Dweebs."
Microsoft, "We're building a commodity operating system." "Without a computer? Why?"
Facebook, "We're starting a social network for college students." "Uhm, like MySpace?"
Edit: Title originally mentioned Google competing with YC.
YC provide the capital they do to cover only the most necessary expenses. For many people there are other ways to raise that amount of cash if you really needed to. (Probably not glamorous ways, but you could likely get there).
It's not exactly apples and oranges, but to focus on the cash kind of misses the point of what YC is about, and what it really offers.
I'd like to believe that Google entering the space is a good thing, and I do, but I believe the focus in the article on the $100m is kind of irrelevant.
How much of that is Google really going to invest at seed stage? And with what ventures?
I'd be eager to find out.