一周工作四小时不是梦

    那么，如果你不打算再写本书，你会忙些什么呢？

    我不能告诉你太多细节，我只能说我将在自己的黄金时间段电视节目中担任执行制片和主持人。

    这个节目什么时候开播？

    非常快。两个月内可能就会有消息。

    除了写书，你还一直是初创型企业的投资人和顾问。你对初创型企业有哪些期望？目前又有哪些目标呢？

    我希望看到的是面向消费者的产品，它们能解决人们的问题，而且它们已经表现出了某种优势，比如在用户采用率方面，在这方面我可以提供很大的帮助。它们得简单易懂，但又得独特到能登上《财富》或《纽约时报》（ New York Times）这些媒体的潮流版块。也就是说，我不光能在纽约和旧金山推广这些产品，在国内其他地方也可以。理想情况下，要有一间以产品为主的工作室，而且执行团队中至少要有一名成员一直待在这家初创型企业，从建立之初一直到退出。但这不是先决条件。

    所以人才的作用基本上要大于产品？

    这还得是一种目前人们就能使用，而且能从中受益的产品。电子记事软件印象笔记（Evernote）让我在写书时完成了所有的研究和无纸化工作。TaskRabbit让我摆脱了奔波和忙碌。Uber帮我在旧金山解决了很多大问题，比如停车位、叫出租车等等。基本上就是这样。

    一些风险投资公司说我天真，因为我只投资我会亲自使用其服务和产品的公司。但到目前为止，这对我来说一直都是一条很好的原则，它不会让我赔钱！

    有没有什么初创型企业是那种从你手边溜掉的机会，让你觉得你原本应该出手投资的？

    移动支付平台Square肯定是其中之一。这种公司有许多，但我首先想到的就是它。从经营和产品角度讲，他们已经取得的成就和他们继续进行的工作让我深感敬佩，而且我认为他们的事业才刚刚开始。

    我喜欢那些事后让人觉得恍然大悟的公司。现在，人们谈到Uber时都会说：“噢，天哪。当然。情况是这么的简单明了。它怎么会不成功呢？”实际上，要点是在它刚刚起步的时候人们根本看不明白。（在构思期我就是Uber的顾问。）能看明白的只有那些有预见力，可以设法看到10年后这个领域情形到底如何的人，比如（Uber联合创始人）加勒特•坎普和特拉维斯•克拉尼克。

    目前你是否在关注着某个科技领域？

    我不想承认，但目前确实没有。实际上我正在考虑降低对初创型企业的参与程度。

    为什么？

    我觉得周围有太多太多的“愚蠢资本”。有人和处于起步阶段的公司签订了合同，其中有些条款离谱得难以置信，而且这些公司的产品根本还没有经过检验。对创业者来说这非常好，因为即使获得投资的99种想法都是愚蠢的，100种想法里总还会有一个可能改变这个世界。

    我对Uber或TaskRabbit投资时，它们多少有些超前，因为那时甚至还没有这种类型或题材。当时我的感觉是这样的题材比较容易理解，自己已经落在潮流之后，而且正在投入资金，所以我真的不是很清楚。我寻找的是那些让我觉得“老天爷！没有这个我可怎么活！”的东西。

    So if you're not writing another book, what are you working on?

    I can't give you a lot of detail, but I'm going to be executive producing and hosting my own TV show on primetime.

    When can we expect that?

    It's coming very, very soon. There will be news probably within the next two months.

    Books aside, you've also been a startup investor and advisor. What do you look for in a startup, and what's on the radar these days?

    So I look for consumer-facing products addressing a problem I have that are already demonstrating traction of some type -- like user adoption -- that I can help dramatically. They need to be simple enough to understand, yet unique enough to pitch a trend piece to say, Fortune or the New York Times. Which means by default, I could pitch it not just to New York and San Francisco but the rest of the country. And ideally, but not a prerequisite, a product-focused studio and at least one person who's been with the startup from early inception to exit on the exec team.

    So it's largely driven by the talent more so than the product?

    And a product I can use in its current state and derive value from. Evernote solved all my researching and paperless goals for creating books. TaskRabbit allows me to get rid of all the errands and busywork. Uber solves major problems in San Francisco that are parking-related, taxi-related, and so on. That's pretty much it.

    I've been criticized by some VCs who've said it's naive to only invest in companies whose services and products you would use yourself, but so far it's been a good rule for me not losing money!

    Is there a startup you'd call the "the one that got away," one you wished you'd backed?

    Square is definitely one of them. There are many, but that's the first one that comes to mind. Operationally and from a product standpoint, I just have so much respect for what they've done and what they continue to do, and think they're just getting started.

    I love the ones that look obvious in hindsight. People now look at Uber and go, "Oh, my god. Of course. So straightforward. How could it not do well?" The fact of the matter is, it didn't look obvious at all to people in the very beginning. (And I was a pre-seed advisor to Uber.) It wasn't obvious except for people looking into a crystal ball, trying to look 10 years down the field like [cofounders] Garrett Camp and Travis Kalanick.

    Is there an area of tech you're currently eyeing?

    I hate to say it, but no. I'm actually considering dialing back my startup involvement.

    Why is that?

    I think there's way too much "dumb capital" floating around. You have people signing deals offering unbelievably insane terms to early stage companies that haven't validated their product at all. That's great for the entrepreneurs because even if 99 stupid ideas are funded, there should be one out of 100 that could change the world. For someone capital-constrained, it makes investing intelligently very difficult.

    When I invested in Uber or TaskRabbit, they were sort of ahead of the curve before these labels or themes were even available. I feel like by the time there's a theme that's easily understood, you're already behind the wave and you're investing in funds, so I really don't know. I just look for things where I go, "Holy shit! How do I live without this?"