Comment by vivzkestrel
2 months ago
- stupid question: how do you go about raising that kinda money consistently
- like why wont you fund me a few million dollars to build my deep edtech startup
- like what guarantee does this guy give you which i cant
Being the "Apple" of enterprise compute (ie. vertical hardware software integration), solving the layers of aggregrate cruft that every single player in the Linux space (including Facebook/Google and other hyperscalers to some degree) have to deal with for compatibility since no one company has enough leverage to clean up poor or outdated legacy decisions in the stack. This is just a bigger market than anything EdTech, and with a real moat. Plus bonafides and actual evidence they are pulling it off, but that's honestly all gravy on top of the market opportunity.
Apple is the survivor of vertical integration on consumer computing, the PC clones were the exception from everyone else in the market.
Apple is now having that aura, only because they got really really lucky before the money collectors shown up at the door.
Sure. What's your point with regards to Oxide?
7 replies →
Product-market fit. Based on prior Oxide announcements, they've been clear the raising is in large part about building out manufacturing to meet customer demand. In venture capital investing, once you've found a winner (a company that you have high confidence will be successful and will produce returns at some multiple above your investment), you ought to put much more money into that winner to maximize that return.
In the last round Bryan and Steve talked about being over-subscribed, especially from existing investors in prior rounds. That likely means those investors see exactly what I've described: a winner that's worthy of additional funding to pump their total return on investment.
It is easier to raise >$100M than few million.
The pool of people trying to raise >$100M is smaller. Failures (in terms of typical VC exit trajectory) have mostly been weeded out.