> We should limit this to people looking for cofounders and who aren't doing something boring/trite/repetitive/guaranteed never to make money in the "social media" space?
Completely agree.
I remember these couple of guys from Stanford working on this project called Backrub. I think it was for search or something.
I can't think of anything more boring or repetitive than search, and making money is definitely not in the cards there.
Wonder how many investors they had to pitch before they gave up and went back to school.
I agree with the general thrust of your statement, but at the same time, the "that's what they said about Google" argument is becoming a bit tired in startup circles, don't you think?
Not every startup has the potential to be the next Google, that's just a fact of life.
Sure, there are plenty of startups whose future just isn't that bright.
My point, though, is that the list of people genuinely qualified to make those assessments is extraordinarily short, and even they get it wrong sometimes. The spectrum between stupid and crazy enough to work is an especially muddy one. It's easy to snipe at people, but in the end someone with their nuts on the line pushing a crazy idea has, at least, stepped up.
So if such a person wants to pitch a co-founder and hopefully make some magic happen, I'm not of the mind to criticize. No one has to listen to them, or join them, but let 'em pitch.
Yeah, everyone knows that search is only good for driving traffic at other pages where you sell banner ads. Building a portal is the only viable long-term strategy, and Yahoo! has that locked up.
