We may also wonder how far the current mindset of the VC industry is responsible for the slowdown in new business formation and lack of economic dynamism in the US. All too often, addicted to capital-light, metric-heavy software businesses, VCs are failing to bet big enough on the breakthrough technologies that tackle our biggest challenges, such as climate change or cancer.Katie Rae, chief executive and managing partner of The Engine, a Boston-based “tough tech” venture fund, says that many VCs have lost sight of their original purpose.“VCs were all about funding tech breakthroughs but that has got lost,” she says. “A lot of VCs look more like private equity companies that do not want to lose any money so they end up backing dog-walking apps rather than quantum computing.”Venture capital investors should harpoon more whales | Financial Times
I fundamentally disagree with the author’s assertion here. Quantum computing is an unproven conceptual idea that “may revolutionize” “post-silicon” computing. However, to what effects? Have the supercomputers made any significant dent for the consumers? Has the existing technology benefited end users?
Dog-walking has a direct relevance to the end users but for quantum computing, I doubt, if someone would be so willing to invest millions of dollars in something that has no end value. I agree that VC’s are smartest lot when it comes to financial knots or pushing to “attract the finest talent”. However, my heckles are raised when millions of dollars were just pumped in series A, B or C to design a “database searchable for doctors”.
The benign view is that Big Tech may be internalising much of the innovation once carried out by start-ups; the malign interpretation is that Cupertino, California is snuffing out smaller rivals.
This is always the “case” where the “benign view” is being shaped up “black PR”. People call it as the “chatter”. For cancer focused “startups”, it may be easier to repurpose the existing technology to understand how it can be effectively used.