Vinod Khosla is the founder of Khosla Ventures, a venture capital firm started in 2004. His firm tries to make investments in disruptive technologies in Internet, computing, mobile, silicon technology, alternative energy and medical technology. He worries, though, that greed, not vision, may be motivating some entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley. Mr. Khosla submitted this guest post to Bits
Some people seem to think that getting acquired should be the highest aspiration for an entrepreneur in Silicon Valley. I disagree vehemently.
In fact, I think that mindset does a disservice to the entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley and around the world. This is exactly the wrong way to think about building a start-up not only because it develops the wrong company culture, but on a large scale it can poison the unique and innovative ecosystem that has developed in Silicon Valley over the past 40 years.
You want missionaries, not mercenaries –passionate, maniacally-focused founders who believe in a vision. Founders like this draw the most gifted and passionate employees, who maximize the chance of success, even if they ultimately fall short of their initial goals and get acquired.
There are of course mercenaries and people setting up for “acqui-hires” in the valley as well, but that is not what Silicon Valley’s special sauce is about.
In my view, it’s irreverence, foolish confidence and naivety combined with persistence, open mindedness and a continual ability to learn that created Facebook, Google, Yahoo, eBay, Microsoft, Apple, Juniper, AOL, Sun Microsystems and others.
Having a vision does not prevent you from being acquired, but starting a company to “do a deal” is not what Silicon Valley culture is about even if most companies that have a successful exit are acquired. An acquisition may be a safety net, a way to free yourself or learn to pursue another bigger or more interesting vision, but those are tools rather than goals of the true Silicon Valley entrepreneurs I have seen. (When I say Silicon Valley, I mean it how my Kleiner partner John Doerr meant it when he used to say “Silicon Valley is not a place but a state of mind.”)
The deal mentality is a Wall Street specialty and doesn’t fit the valley culture. Yammer for instance (recently acquired by Microsoft for $1.2B) was not built to be exited quickly. But when an attractive offer came along the management team chose to take it. That happens quite often and is consistent with how the valley culture should work.
Seeking an acquisition from the start is more than just bad advice for an entrepreneur. For the entrepreneur it leads to short term tactical decisions rather than company-building decisions and in my view often reduces the probability of success. It can lead to sub-par “guns for hire’” rather than a team excited about a larger vision. It leads to a job not a lifestyle.
It makes the world poorer too. Imagine in 1980, if the highest goal of every start-up was to be bought by DEC or IBM for $20M in a couple of years. I’d assert that we’d still be in the Stone Age of high tech – using mainframes and cell phones that bolt to the floor of your car – no Internet, no biotechnology, no e-mail, no computers in the home, much less in your pocket. Imagine a world if Google was sold to Microsoft. Imagine the world of mobile based on Nokia and Motorola if Apple had not been restarted by a missionary entrepreneur named Steve Jobs who cared more for his vision than being tactical and financial. Each of those “no vision” start-ups looking for a quick sale would only try to do something safe and derivative that fit into IBM’s, NBC’s, Cisco’s Pfizer’s or Nokia’s old models.
It’s hard to imagine all the things that wouldn’t have happened, because it’s easy to forget how much the world has changed due to dreamers and entrepreneurs. Many big company advances were also prompted by start-up visions. It was Nexgen, a little start-up, which forced Intel to work much harder on processor architectures. And before Juniper threatened it, Cisco did very little in TCP/IP Internet technologies. In fact, their chief technology officer told me when we were starting Juniper that they would never do an Internet router above OC12, a speed 8 times slower than the one that serves my house today, just because the major telecoms said they would never switch to TCP/IP. Now the world runs on it because we took a “build it and they will come” approach.
In 1980, Ken Olsen, chief executive of DEC, couldn’t imagine people ever needing even one computer in their home, and now even our washing machine, toaster, refrigerator and car have one (or many) processors. The Apple iPad, at a few hundred bucks, is far more powerful than the most powerful computer that DEC built twenty five years ago.
All the best engineers and thinkers would work at big companies accomplishing only a little and maintaining the status quo rather disrupting the status quo or contributing to some part of the world’s needs.
And we need that kind of disruption in food, agriculture, clean energy, healthcare and education among many other areas, which will likely be driven by a Silicon Valley state of mind.
The creativity, productivity and pace of innovation in Silicon Valley relies on brilliant and foolish entrepreneurs being unreasonable enough to believe they can be the exception to the “rule.” As George Bernard Shaw said, “all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” If everyone played it safe, we wouldn’t get anywhere.
20 Comments
The comments section is closed. To submit a letter to the editor for publication, write to letters@nytimes.com.
seattle trip
Seattle September 11, 2013If everyone tried to be the next facebook and nothing less I'm not sure we'd be more evolved. What's often missing in free advice is practicality. The more money you have, the more you're able to dispense lofty advice and feel like it makes perfect sense. So here's yet more free advice from another tech entrepreneur: find whatever stability you need in your personal situation to help insure you can achieve your larger goals. Whatever your personal situation and whatever that means to you may well be the right way forward. If you can't trust your own gut in this regard, then being an entrepreneur almost certainly isn't right for you.
Ramesh G.
Calif. July 19, 2012' Dont be encumbered by history; Go out and do something wonderful'
- Robert Noyce, who put 'Silicon' in the Valley, with Intel in 1968, going on to inspire Steve Jobs..
Ashok Malani
Santa Clara, CA July 16, 2012Mr. Khosla,
I have the same thought but not the words. Thank you for your words. I teach about entrepreneurship and I find the same problems. One has to be motivated by crazy thoughts initially. The act of starting up a company must not be based on exit strategies but on the power of ideas, the belief in ideas, the passion of faith in one's thoughts, belief that you will be successful. At the startup phase, you know you will be successful, but you do not know how. You have not raised money yet, you have not talked to VC's yet, you have not written term sheets yet. All you do is focus on creation and not financial engineering.
Once you are on your journey and have created prototypes, demos, first customers, and have achieved some level of success, then one may think of exits, but only as one option and not the only option.
I do not think everyone has to be crazy about ideas, but we definitly need some of those unreasonable people on this planet earth.
Ashok Malani
urnetwork.org
Larry
The Fifth Circle July 16, 2012I think it's pretty clear that there are two broad categories of these kinds of ventures: 'me too' variants of existing businesses and truly revolutionary enterprises founded by driven visionaries. The first are almost by definition geared toward being acquired or sold in a quick IPO (which is not much different from an acquisition). The latter are built for the long haul, even if they eventually fail, because their founders want to see them through to the end.
Subramanyam
www.Get2Galaxy.com July 16, 2012Can a country be made wherein each person is a leader? Imagine everyone in the country aspiring to be the president but none actually working? I guess the above is equally scary and unreal! For a stable eco-system, you need all the types of players. The more companies are built with an acquisition as their only goal & achieve great quick exits, the greater the probability of another facebook, google or amazon….
More people making a couple of millions early in their career, the higher their potential to create a visionary enterprise. I see no wrong in that nor did understand why Khosla believes it as bad. I am building my company for a long haul and can do that because my first business is keeping cash flow to allow me experiment and do whatever is right& best for my dream venture.
Varun Deshpande
Hyderabad India July 16, 2012There have been few discussions in the past about Acquisitions and I agree with Mr. Khosla here about why you should try to build sustainable companies and create value over looking for the next big exit. Most of the times the combined value of two companies (after acquisition) is less than what they could have had separately. The most fruitful and meaningful exits that we have seen had a greater combined value. This parameter is the one where the entrepreneur should focus on.
Regards,
Varun Deshpande
www.TopTalent.in
Bob
New York, NY July 16, 2012I have nothing but respect for Mr. Khosla, but this is terrible advice for entrepreneurs. Moreover, it tellingly reflects the clashing incentives facing Mr. Khosla as an investor and the average start-up founder. Acquisitions are only a "safety net" if entrepreneurs manage carefully toward that goal. Otherwise, they court disaster: years of hard work and nothing to show for it. (Highlighting billion-dollar acquisitions such as Yammer is disingenuous. Such acquisitions are as rare as IPOs.)
The reason that even multi-million dollar acquisitions often return nothing to founders is directly related to the terms imposed on founders by venture capitalists. If Mr. Khosla wants to encourage risk-taking, perhaps instead of complaining about Wall St. thinking, he should look at the liquidation preferences embedded in his term sheets.
Finally, stirring words aside, why should entrepreneurs shoulder the burden of fostering the Silicon Valley ecosystem? Isn't it enough to pour everything have into your company? Isn't that what you owe your customers, your employees, your investors, and yourself? Moonshots make sense for Mr. Khosla, who can diversify risk across his portfolio. Entrepreneurs face a very different equation, and given that the large majority of start-ups either fail or are acquired, founders will do well to build their companies accordingly.
Connelly Barnes
Cambridge, MA July 16, 2012If he's right then that should translate into positive returns. Some third party articles claim his fund has positive returns although his website doesn't provide any evidence for this. It's not clear whether he's a fraud or correct. I'm inherently skeptical of these people since they brought the dot com bubble in the '90s. The bottom line is in investment objective facts based on sound evidence determine whether you are right or wrong, not opinion.
Mary Jesse
Redmond, WA July 15, 2012There is an obvious paradox here despite the great value in this vision. By definition, you can't ignore the exit. I founded Ivycorp, Redmond, WA based developers of Ivytalk, a disruptive messaging platform. We are focused on building a healthy business with a big vision. You can be focused on fundamentals, but if you raise outside funding and use stock as a reward to hard working employees, you cannot ignore the exit. Investors will not let you. As CEO, in fact, I have an obligation to enable an exit at some point to reward the employees for their hard work and investors for their participation. Ideally, then the exits fund the next cycle of would-be world changers.
In recent years, the economy drove investors to embrace less risky paths, but real breakthroughs cannot be found there. Crazy big ideas by previously successful, well-known entrepreneurs are the high risk exceptions that get funded. Even then, due to founder self-funding, outside investment may only be used for growth when the risk has been largely mitigated. Incubators have helped, but there is still a big barrier going beyond seed.
Vinod's leadership could not be more important and well timed.
The world needs slightly crazy, big thinking technologists and entrepreneurs to create solutions to the world's biggest problems in food supply, energy, health, environment, etc. and investors with vision to take chances by funding them.
Respectfully,
Mary Jesse
www.ivytalk.com
@Ivytalk
Ken Forbus
Chicago July 15, 2012Very well put. The shift from ideas to deals as the focus of the Valley started over a decade ago. It's not clear to me how to reverse it.
Ilya
L.A. July 15, 2012Agree with every word.
But the ecosystem, too, should support daring entrepreneurs with resources and absorbing part of the risk. Instead, VCs are doing just the opposite, being the most conservative and risk-averse part of the industry. Therefore, they create the wrong incentives for startups: to play it safe instead of daring to push fundamental innovations.
And you, Mr. Khosla, do you practice what you preach? Is Khosla Ventures different?
Disclosure: I am a Silicon Valley entrepreneur currently raising a financing round for my startup.
Ilya Eckstein
CEO @ Magnifis.com
JR
Palo Alto July 15, 2012The mercenaries are the patent trolls that are starting to arrive in droves.
The patent office is coming..
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=25981
http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/ip-attache-bill-...
Bonus, if you work at a patent office - you expose yourself to future claims. Engineers are taught early on to steer clear of this.
Roger Stephens
San Francisco Bay Area July 15, 2012Sir Vinod,
Astounding article, if you continue to speak to the truth you just may be able to create a global paradigm based in Silicon Valley that will change the world in a good way. It would seem that many, not only entrepreneurs, but venture capitalists are driven by the "what I can get and take" model as opposed to the "Good I can do" concept. Personally I believe that if you develop the construct from the positive creation aspect, the greater good if you will, the impact will change the way we perceive business and our responsibilities to those we serve. Cost of Medical Technologies and education need to change in a effort to save the sinking boat of health care. I created a paradigm that does that and creates the solutions that provide true solution on many levels. Because our focus is on merging technology and education the given result is not only for the greater good its revenue generating potential is a natural bi-product exponentially.
I believe this article will shift paradigms to be funded for its passion, vision and innovation; bringing about a significant shift in the society towards growth and progress the world populace deserves, the greater good for all as opposed for the small group. I am invigorated to see a man of such stature helping to begin the shift......positive creation construct on the move. Thank You very much, you are a true visionary.
Again, Thank You Sir
Subbu Iyer
San Francisco July 15, 2012Dear Vinod
it is about time a person of your stature wrote a piece like this. It is not just a silicon valley syndrome is it, that businesses are started today with the theme of an exit strategy more that a staying strategy? It is a nexus between VC's and "Smartly Connected" entrepreneurs who succeed in playing this carousal. I am glad you clarify Silicon Valley as a state of mind because this malaise is a global phenomena. I truly hope that this article will bring about a change in the attitudes. Well, the proof would be if at least one good idea is funded for its passion, vision and innovation; bringing about a significant shift in the society towards growth and progress. It can make a great advertisement for "Silicon Valley" and the faith in the fairness of American Liberty restored. That is America's selling point to the world, isn't it?
Thank You.
Sachi Mohanty
India July 14, 2012What this breathtaking pace of change is doing is that people in the future will probably have three or six careers in their working life of 30 or 40 years.
Scary.
KenG
Santa Barbara, CA July 14, 2012Wait a sec, Vinod, you have a 5 Gbps pipe to your house? That's not fair!
My office is 4000 feet from a Verizon CO. In a city in California. The fastest speed they offer is 7 Mbps. Using 12 year old technology. There's an investment opportunity for you.
Raman
Singh July 14, 2012I have to agree, this is a great post by Vinod! I was told by one of my professors that a lot has changed, myself, a young student, definitely agree!
On another note, a lot of investors are being too greedy or holding back to invest in new technologies or business in energy/oil sector. I can assure you of this from personal experience.
Bhanu Sharma
San Francisco July 14, 2012Great post by Vinod. I quite agree with him that the underlying tone of the valley startup scene is seemingly becoming like a frat party that no one wants to miss out on. That said, I feel a lot has changed in the landscape as well, and perhaps its best to look at this problem with a different lens.
In every entrepreneurial ecosystem, there are "dreamsmen" (made up term to describe radical visionaries) and heat and opportunity sensing "businessmen". The latter look for safer plays, shorter runs, and build incremental improvements, while the dreams want to change an industry or society forever.
Since the barriers to doing a startup have come down remarkably fast, we're simply seeing a rapid shift in ratio between the two camps.
Amazon vs. DollarShaveClub are both retail, just different breeds of entrepreneurs and talent behind them.
dink
usa July 13, 2012i hope he helps usa to be independent , of foreign energy
Scott Robinson
Palo Alto July 13, 2012"You want missionaries, not mercenaries –passionate, maniacally-focused founders who believe in a vision."
Incredibly insightful information--Thank you for sharing.
I work with Eric Simons:
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/eric-simons-lived-at-aol_n_1546...
We'd love to pick your brain sometime, if you are ever free.
We're not necessarily looking to get acquired; however, we're trying to disrupt education, one teacher at a time.
#unitedweteach
#edtech
@classconnectinc
Thanks again!