This was a great idea, but I think the spreadsheet fails on two fronts—first, it’s measuring the end product rather than the founders and how they operate and attempt to scale, which is the primary thing Benquo is talking about here I believe, and two is that if I ranked these companies I don’t think there would be that much correlation with these rankings.
In the examples from the comment, and judging purely on nature of product since I don’t know the founders or early histories much, I’d have had Twitch as positive while I had Doordash as negative, I’d agree with Dropbox and Gusto, and Scale is a weird case where we think the product is bad if it is real but that’s orthogonal to the main point here.
Looking at the S&P 500 I see the same thing. Amazon at 0 seems insane to me (I’d be +lots) and McDonalds at −2 even more so especially in its early days (The Founder is a very good movie about its origins).
This was a great idea, but I think the spreadsheet fails on two fronts—first, it’s measuring the end product rather than the founders and how they operate and attempt to scale, which is the primary thing Benquo is talking about here I believe, and two is that if I ranked these companies I don’t think there would be that much correlation with these rankings.
In the examples from the comment, and judging purely on nature of product since I don’t know the founders or early histories much, I’d have had Twitch as positive while I had Doordash as negative, I’d agree with Dropbox and Gusto, and Scale is a weird case where we think the product is bad if it is real but that’s orthogonal to the main point here.
Looking at the S&P 500 I see the same thing. Amazon at 0 seems insane to me (I’d be +lots) and McDonalds at −2 even more so especially in its early days (The Founder is a very good movie about its origins).