即刻App年轻人的同好社区
下载
置顶与许多中国风险投资人不同，我和我的合伙人克里斯不会投资于竞争对手。投资竞争对手是风险投资人能做的最不忠诚和不专注的事情。它显示出完全缺乏信念，并且是懦弱的行为。
一旦我们选择了创始团队，我们就会完全承诺给他们，并确保他们有赢得的最佳机会。对我们来说，忠诚和完全专注是世界一流伙伴关系的基础。即使我们最终错了，错失了赚钱的机会。我们不想投资于Robinhood、Manus、Plaud、Qbit或Wanaka的竞争对手。当我们给你开支票时，那就是我们的承诺。坚持到底。(Grok translation)
Unlike a lot of VCs in China, my partner Chris and I do not invest in competitors. Investing in competitors is the most disloyal and unfocused thing a VC can do. It shows a total lack of conviction and is spineless behavior.
Once we pick a founding team, we commit to them entirely and make sure they have the best chance of winning. To us, loyalty and total focus is the foundation of a world-class partnership. Even if we end up being wrong and leave money on the table. We don’t want to invest in Robinhood, Manus, Plaud, Qbit, or Wanaka competitors. When we write you a check that’s our promise. In it until the end.
一旦我们选择了创始团队，我们就会完全承诺给他们，并确保他们有赢得的最佳机会。对我们来说，忠诚和完全专注是世界一流伙伴关系的基础。即使我们最终错了，错失了赚钱的机会。我们不想投资于Robinhood、Manus、Plaud、Qbit或Wanaka的竞争对手。当我们给你开支票时，那就是我们的承诺。坚持到底。(Grok translation)
Unlike a lot of VCs in China, my partner Chris and I do not invest in competitors. Investing in competitors is the most disloyal and unfocused thing a VC can do. It shows a total lack of conviction and is spineless behavior.
Once we pick a founding team, we commit to them entirely and make sure they have the best chance of winning. To us, loyalty and total focus is the foundation of a world-class partnership. Even if we end up being wrong and leave money on the table. We don’t want to invest in Robinhood, Manus, Plaud, Qbit, or Wanaka competitors. When we write you a check that’s our promise. In it until the end.
114 1521
This is a really excellent episode today to talk about the current state of the world of pricing, competition, and safety.
13 33
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your point is well taken, but I think this argument is fair for software capabilities but humans are the limiting factor and require interfaces that represent the capabilities well. The current prevailing narrative also puts a lot of weight on “single player mode” tooling which I believe to be a very small aperture of consumer product category, especially if you move further away from “productivity”. //@dante326: 软件本质上是个人和组织的能力对外界的编码和接口。他/他们能提供什么样的能力，就会提供什么样的 GUI、API，以及相应的产品和服务。
这里容易混淆两个问题：软件的功能会不会继续存在，和这些功能是不是以独立的软件形式来提供。功能不会消失，但相当一部分应用层的能力会被模型层吸收，剩下的应用会分化。模型每原生化一种能力，实际上都在重新划一次模型层与应用层的边界。
所以我不太同意把你的中国同行更愿意投大模型的现象，简单归因于跟风、懒于思考、共识或者资产安全。我相信其中有相当一部分人是真的高度看好大模型，也有一部分人已经预判到，模型能力继续扩张后，会吸收一部分软件能力，同时分化剩余的软件。
反过来，投资 Manus，在我看来反而可能是过于重视大模型阶段性的能力和形态而做出的阶段性判断——当然我能理解没有人能准确预见未来。今天很多独立 Agent 产品的价值，本身就建立在模型当前还不能原生完成规划、工具调用、计算机操作、长期上下文和复杂任务执行之上。如果这些能力继续被模型吸收，Manus 当前建立在这些能力缺口上的产品价值也会被一起吸收。最后还是要看，它有哪些能力和资源，在模型继续进化以后仍然可以独立存在。
Software is essentially the way individuals and organizations encode their capabilities and expose them to the outside world. Whatever capabilities they have will be expressed through corresponding GUIs, APIs, products, and services.
I think two questions are easily conflated here: whether the functions of software will continue to exist, and whether those functions still need to be delivered through standalone software. The functions won’t disappear, but a significant part of what sits in the application layer will be absorbed into the model layer, while the applications that remain will split into different forms. Every time a model turns another capability into a native capability, it redraws the boundary between the model layer and the application layer.
So I don’t quite agree with attributing your Chinese peers’ preference for investing in foundation models simply to following the crowd, intellectual laziness, consensus-seeking, or capital preservation. I believe a meaningful share of them genuinely have very high conviction in foundation models. Some may also have anticipated that, as model capabilities keep expanding, models will absorb part of what software does today and force the rest of the software layer to reorganize.
Conversely, investing in Manus strikes me as a decision that may have placed too much weight on the current-stage capabilities and product form of foundation models — though of course I understand that no one can predict the future accurately. Much of the value of today’s standalone Agent products exists precisely because models still cannot natively handle planning, tool use, computer use, long-term context, and complex task execution well enough. If those capabilities continue to be absorbed into the model itself, the part of Manus’s current product value that is built around those capability gaps will be absorbed as well. What ultimately matters is what capabilities and resources it has that can still exist independently as the models continue to evolve.
这里容易混淆两个问题：软件的功能会不会继续存在，和这些功能是不是以独立的软件形式来提供。功能不会消失，但相当一部分应用层的能力会被模型层吸收，剩下的应用会分化。模型每原生化一种能力，实际上都在重新划一次模型层与应用层的边界。
所以我不太同意把你的中国同行更愿意投大模型的现象，简单归因于跟风、懒于思考、共识或者资产安全。我相信其中有相当一部分人是真的高度看好大模型，也有一部分人已经预判到，模型能力继续扩张后，会吸收一部分软件能力，同时分化剩余的软件。
反过来，投资 Manus，在我看来反而可能是过于重视大模型阶段性的能力和形态而做出的阶段性判断——当然我能理解没有人能准确预见未来。今天很多独立 Agent 产品的价值，本身就建立在模型当前还不能原生完成规划、工具调用、计算机操作、长期上下文和复杂任务执行之上。如果这些能力继续被模型吸收，Manus 当前建立在这些能力缺口上的产品价值也会被一起吸收。最后还是要看，它有哪些能力和资源，在模型继续进化以后仍然可以独立存在。
Software is essentially the way individuals and organizations encode their capabilities and expose them to the outside world. Whatever capabilities they have will be expressed through corresponding GUIs, APIs, products, and services.
I think two questions are easily conflated here: whether the functions of software will continue to exist, and whether those functions still need to be delivered through standalone software. The functions won’t disappear, but a significant part of what sits in the application layer will be absorbed into the model layer, while the applications that remain will split into different forms. Every time a model turns another capability into a native capability, it redraws the boundary between the model layer and the application layer.
So I don’t quite agree with attributing your Chinese peers’ preference for investing in foundation models simply to following the crowd, intellectual laziness, consensus-seeking, or capital preservation. I believe a meaningful share of them genuinely have very high conviction in foundation models. Some may also have anticipated that, as model capabilities keep expanding, models will absorb part of what software does today and force the rest of the software layer to reorganize.
Conversely, investing in Manus strikes me as a decision that may have placed too much weight on the current-stage capabilities and product form of foundation models — though of course I understand that no one can predict the future accurately. Much of the value of today’s standalone Agent products exists precisely because models still cannot natively handle planning, tool use, computer use, long-term context, and complex task execution well enough. If those capabilities continue to be absorbed into the model itself, the part of Manus’s current product value that is built around those capability gaps will be absorbed as well. What ultimately matters is what capabilities and resources it has that can still exist independently as the models continue to evolve.
PatrickKavanagh: “软件公司已经没法投了，我们只能投大LM，软件会死掉”——眼下大多数中国VC都是这个论调 我的问题是：到底是软件公司真的不值得投，还是你们投过的那些软件公司产品团队实在太烂，所以现在被自己的踩坑经历带偏了？😂 “Software companies are uninvestable, we can only invest in LLMs, software will die” - most Chinese VCs right now My question: Are software companies uninvestable or the software companies you invested in just awful product teams, so now you are biased by your mistakes?
8 21
“软件公司已经没法投了，我们只能投大LM，软件会死掉”——眼下大多数中国VC都是这个论调
我的问题是：到底是软件公司真的不值得投，还是你们投过的那些软件公司产品团队实在太烂，所以现在被自己的踩坑经历带偏了？😂
“Software companies are uninvestable, we can only invest in LLMs, software will die” - most Chinese VCs right now
My question: Are software companies uninvestable or the software companies you invested in just awful product teams, so now you are biased by your mistakes?
我的问题是：到底是软件公司真的不值得投，还是你们投过的那些软件公司产品团队实在太烂，所以现在被自己的踩坑经历带偏了？😂
“Software companies are uninvestable, we can only invest in LLMs, software will die” - most Chinese VCs right now
My question: Are software companies uninvestable or the software companies you invested in just awful product teams, so now you are biased by your mistakes?
132 3429
Just learned that you will not be able to add a Chinese local eSIM to an iPhone Duo purchased abroad 🤦♂️
12 60
Hypershell being resold as a YC startup is not something I would expect of the organization.
15 00
创始人常陷入的一个大陷阱是：很容易从“我怎样才能把这个做得更便宜”这个问题入手，而不是“我怎样才能把这个做得更贵”。更具体地说，是“我怎样才能让我的产品好到让人们乐意支付比竞争对手更高的价格”。后一种思路体现了对客户的深刻理解，而这往往在长期来看更有价值。
A big trap for founders is, it is tempting to start with the question “how can i make this cheaper” instead of “how can i make this more expensive”. More specifically, “how can i make my product so much better that people are happy to pay more than my competitors”. The latter answer demonstrates a mastery of customer understanding, which is often far more valuable in the long term.
A big trap for founders is, it is tempting to start with the question “how can i make this cheaper” instead of “how can i make this more expensive”. More specifically, “how can i make my product so much better that people are happy to pay more than my competitors”. The latter answer demonstrates a mastery of customer understanding, which is often far more valuable in the long term.
43 36