This article was first published on the WeChat public account: New Wisdom. The content of the article belongs to the author's personal opinion and does not represent the position of Hexun.com. Investors should act accordingly, at their own risk.
Samvit Jain is a Ph.D. student at UC Berkeley and researches data-intensive systems at RISELab (RISELab is Berkeley's lab established earlier this year to make computers make real-time, secure and intelligent decisions, a five-year research project). Jain's research interests include machine learning and distributed systems. Before entering Berkeley, he studied CS under Princeton and graduated with highest honors in 2017. This article is based on his experience interviewing a series of technology companies during the junior years of Princeton University. Finally, Jain had to choose between a large publicly traded company, a member who had just joined the Unicorn Club, and a startup in San Francisco with 100 employees and financing to Round B.
Jain published an article on his blog summarizing his experience in making decisions, highlighting how to evaluate startups. Jain said that although he mainly wrote for college graduates, the method he described also applies to anyone who wants to join a startup/small company.
Entering a company is also an investment. Venture capitalists may invest a lot of money and a small amount of time (ie monthly board meetings), and as an employee, the main asset you use when investing is your time.
There are many rewards you can get – career development, personal growth and fulfillment, and financial returns. Making any decision is accompanied by opportunity cost – giving up the expected return that might be made by another option.
Finally, like a venture capitalist, as an employee, you can only work in one place, so you can only invest once in time. Therefore, Marc Andreessen of Silicon Valley's famous venture capital firm A16Z may set a 1:10 hit rate, but you must raise your own standards.
All of this is not to complicate the decision, but to put it in a definitive context – as a potential employee, you are an investor and you should evaluate the business as much as the company evaluates you.
The company's brand recognition, raised capital, investor reputation, your friends' opinions – all of which may be important, but they are just secondary signals to the company's future prospects. So, what places should you focus on and how important is it to each place?
The advantages of joining a large company are obvious, the organizational structure is perfect, there are rules and regulations to follow things, better treatment (especially welfare), new opportunities can be transferred within the company (such as programmers can be turned into product managers, browsers The senior director can become the department head of the mobile operating system). However, working in a large company changes slowly, and your achievement and quality of life depend more on your environment (team) than on you.
Here are some of the potential criteria to observe a startup:
Current attraction (user, income)
Growth rate (user, income)
Number of Employees
The power of the founder
The strength of early employees
Investor background (reputation, past investment record)
Each round of financing
Company Location
Personal fitness
We assume that you want to achieve personal growth, career development, and financial returns. The benefit is that these three goals are often closely linked, joining a start-up company that is early and fast-growing, with strong founders and talented employees, to meet your three needs.
The following article will help you find such a company.
Current attraction
The fact that assessing start-ups is particularly difficult is that most key indicators are not publicly available. Statistics such as monthly or daily active users (MAU / DAU), annual income and rumway, even existing employees are sometimes not well understood, let alone found on the Internet.
In addition, the founders and supervisors are unlikely to share this information during the interview process – but if you have a chance to talk to them, it's definitely worth mentioning.
At the same time, even if these numbers can be found, they may not actually be the strongest signals. For example, for early consumer-facing companies (such as Facebook in 2008), revenues are often not very important, and for To B's technology startups, measuring the number of users may not be particularly effective—for many years, Palantir There is only one customer: the US government.
You must also be careful about the beautiful data given by the company after screening. Mobile app companies may choose to show total downloads of their products instead of monthly active users, or their amazingly high churn rate (ie, unload rate).
A well-known example, Draw Something is a social graphics application. In March 2012, Zynga acquired Draw Something and its parent company OMGPop for $180 million. Within two months of the acquisition, the number of Draw Somthing's daily users fell by a third, from the peak of 15 million on the day of the acquisition to 10 million. Through close integration with Facebook, Draw Something has taken some hacking behaviors to achieve user growth and abandoned the opportunity to build a sustainable product for rapid growth.
result? Draw Something has become one of the biggest bubbles in the era of social local mobile apps.
growth rate
The growth rate is more troublesome. Growth figures, especially when measuring only two data points (that is, today's indicator vs. last year's indicator), are often difficult to assess unless the absolute value is known. Facebook may say that it achieved 2150% revenue growth in 2005. Of course, Facebook's growth rate was really fast at the time, but the "2150%" figure is meaningless because Facebook's revenue in 2004 was almost zero.
This is not a casual talk. In an interview with Jain, he met many startups who claimed that they "received more than last year." Some companies say they "receive income every year," but they only set up for three years. When these companies gave these amazing data, they did not explicitly tell Jain what their current income is.
You should also ask yourself why a company chooses to tell you their growth rate, not the absolute value. This may be because the statistical growth rate looks more beautiful. You should know that as a derivative of the annual income (or total number of users) chart, the growth rate almost always contains less information.
Of course, this cannot be generalized. If the founders mentioned that their services have more than 1 million users and they have increased by 200% year-on-year, even if he doesn't tell you the exact number, you may already have enough information to judge that the company's business is growing fast. .
Joining a company that is growing at an alarming rate is one of the smartest decisions you can make early in your career. Such a startup will offer many opportunities, and you can grow and assume leadership roles, surrounded by smart and ambitious colleagues who are likely to be your future business partners and even co-founders. Finally, as many have said, it is very meaningful to win in the early stages of your career. Rapid early growth is a very good sign of a company's success in the future.
In fact, true hypergrowth is rare, and it is extremely difficult to find companies that are over-growth. You can think of it, joining a fast-growing company, and reversing the momentum of a 50-person, slow-growing company, the former may be easier.
On the other hand, joining a startup that “failed†after you joined for a year or two is not as bad as you think. Assuming that the startup has significant potential and the recruitment criteria are high, no one will blame you for the company's failure. It may be different in the Bay Area or outside the United States. However, staying in a company that has no clear prospects, is crumbling, and ultimately fails, the biggest loss is not to stain your resume, but the time you lost. Your five years in this failed company should have been continuous learning and growth, which means that you have lost five years of study and growth.
It should be pointed out that a failed startup does not mean a professional taint, which is the same for both employees and founders. Moreover, if you are the founder and do something that you really care about and want to do, even if it fails in the end, you will not necessarily regret it (compared to joining a 50-person company to be an employee).
Number of employees
Cisco now has 70,000 employees and its share price has hovered between $15 and $30 in the past 16 years. When WhatsApp was acquired by Facebook in February 2014 for $19 billion, there were only 55 employees.
Obviously, the number of employees has little impact on the quality of the company. However, by combining the current number of employees with the company's latest valuation, you can know how much you will get if you join.
However, this is only one aspect of the matter. How many potential shares you have has virtually no impact on your future career development. 100% or 10% of 0, 1% is 0.
The power of the founder
The founder's power is the only standard that Jain has rated as five stars. This is a good understanding. Venture capitalists have said that among all the factors, the one that has the strongest influence on a company is the founding team.
Let's take a look at the five technology companies and their founders with the highest listings in the world today:
Facebook: Mark Zuckerberg started programming in middle school, high school established Synapse, a smart music player, and AOL and Microsoft opened up to $1 million to acquire. During his time at Harvard University, Zuckerberg established the student social tool Facemash, which once made Harvard's servers paralyzed, and the security holes involved in the software almost caused him to be fired.
Amazon - Jeff Bezos entered Princeton to study physics, with the goal of becoming a theoretical physicist, but graduated with the highest score in electrical engineering and computer science. During his eight-year career on Wall Street, Bezos became the youngest vice president of the two-year hedge fund DE Shaw's.
Microsoft - Bill Gates began programming in their eighth year with their high school computer, a company donated to their high school, Gates from writing simple games to exploiting time-of-use systems (this behavior almost made him unable Use the school computer) to develop a payroll program for that company. At Harvard, he solved a small, open combo problem as a proof of concept for computer enthusiasts and a BASIC compiler for the Altair 8800 microcomputer.
Alphabet - After graduating from the University of Maryland with a degree in Computer Science and Mathematics, Sergey Brin began his PhD in computer science at Stanford University in 1994. On the other, Larry Page is a computer engineering major at the University of Michigan, 1995. He started his Ph.D. at Stanford University. Page wants to do research on telepresence and autonomous driving, but with Brin, decided to focus on exploring the structure of the fast-growing World Wide Web.
Apple - In high school, Steve Jobs was interested in everything from Shakespeare to Plato to writing and writing to electronics. Take a freshman English class at the upper grades of Stanford University and then drop out of Reed College after 6 months. Later, Jobs moved to India, where he lived for seven months. Later, he took a contract project from Atari, found Steve Wozniak to help, built a highly optimized board for arcade games, and earned $5,000 through the deal.
Have you noticed that the six founders have something in common?
Three people graduated from college, and two were doctoral dropouts. Five of the six people are engaged in technology. No one is a continuous entrepreneur. None of the 6 people has any professional experience.
Moreover, unfortunately, they are also white males, both born in a family with a good family and support for their children.
However, in these descriptions, we can also see some recurring personal qualities—intensity, ambition, and clear passion, often from a young age, often ignoring. rule.
In an interview with fashion magazine Vogue, James Jennifer Lawrence, the highest paid actress in the world, once said that she “has always known [she] will become famous†(accepted once In Wired's interview, Bezos's girlfriend also said that Bezos always believed that he would become a very rich person. Bezos's point of view is not the money itself, but the things he can do with money. Therefore, Jain added a point in the column of personal qualities, that is, believe in yourself.
It is worth noting that today, Bezos' Blue Origin is the leading space exploration company alongside Musk SpaceX, and Alphabet is the industry leader in driverless technology. Obviously, Bezos’ interest in space colonization in the early days, and Page’s interest in unmanned vehicles is not a false passion, but a deep ambition – a commitment to the future and a determination to act immediately when the opportunity comes. .
So, can you describe the founder of the startup you are evaluating in two sentences?
In your description, try to focus on specific achievements rather than proper nouns. For example, Sarah graduated from Harvard's public policy major and worked at Goldman Sachs for two years. Should write: "Sarah graduated from Harvard University, where she is committed to developing new financial tools that allow immigrants from oppressive regimes to remotely liquidate assets and even test her theory through field research in Syria; at Goldman Sachs She helped expand the bank's portfolio of consumer finance technology companies and personally oversaw the late financial operations of three bitcoin and blockchain-related startups."
Later, Sarah can be a good CEO or COO for a startup based on blockchain as a smart asset. Sarah has a strong self-motivation, can open new things and insist on doing them until I see results/returns. She uses invention to shape the future, not just for her own interests. She also successfully confronted the competition – it was not easy to be admitted to Harvard University and take office at Goldman Sachs.
To sum up, the successful founders have the following experiences:
Holding a key position in a very successful company: This is relatively rare, but if the founder does hold a senior position in a large company, this is often a strong sign. Two good examples are Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and Facebook's first chief technology officer Adam D'Angelo, who created two very good companies, Asana and Quora. Dustin and Adam are both talented people with first-line experience in big companies, and are really eager to build their own company - in about 2008, Facebook, what they want to do, to a large extent, must have someone to do it. Can be achieved. Asana is actually derived from Facebook's internal projects. Adam gave up his equity and left Facebook to start Quora. It turns out that the problems they choose to solve are valuable.
Continuous entrepreneurs: Jain has a complex relationship with this. Continuous entrepreneurs are considered a big advantage, and there are many good examples, such as Musk and even Jobs. However, entrepreneurship is a difficult journey, and great founders tend to think of their company as their lifelong career. If someone has a series of records that sell their company to a big company at a high price, it is difficult to judge his/her dedication as a founder and whether he/she has the ability to lead the company to greatness in difficult times. It is especially important to note that if someone has worked with the founder in the past and feels that they have been pitted, you need to be especially vigilant.
Expertise: Having expertise is valuable but may not be absolutely necessary. Investors like the founders to have such characteristics. But as an outsider, sometimes it is also a big advantage. In addition, when Musk created SpaceX and Tesla, there was no expertise, and space exploration and autonomous driving seemed to have extremely high barriers. However, we may overestimate the difficulty of being smart enough to quickly grasp the relevant knowledge of their concerns.
The strength of early employees
My approach to assessing the quality of the company's early workforce may be controversial. I use LinkedIn's profile to view the schools where early employees were educated and the companies they worked for. I think if the school is not very good, or some company I have never heard of, it is very vigilant. This sounds naive and even prejudicial, so please let me explain two sentences.
In my experience, at least some of the best start-ups are from Stanford University, MIT, and Harvard. This was the case with early Google and Facebook. The same is true for companies like Dropbox, Stripe, Airbnb and Quora today. If a startup does not have such a talent, then one of the following two points may be explained to me:
1. The founders and their early recruitment network cannot reach new graduates from these schools;
2. Startup companies cannot convince students in these schools to work for them.
The first one is better than the second one. The great founders come from many different places, and some may be weaker in contact with the top schools. However, after the entrepreneurship reaches a certain scale, it has a certain reputation, and this excuse will become weak.
The second point reflects something that is not very good, but understandable. Recruiting smart people is really hard. I know this because I spent several months in early 2015 searching for top employees for LinkMeUp, where I was involved in the investment. I opened a booth at a pioneering fair in Princeton, posted advertisements in colleges and Facebook's geek community, and even upgraded to LinkedIn Premium, sending a lot of outspoken news to students on my extended network. I interviewed several candidates for an Android engineer role, some of which I refused, and several others rejected me.
This story shows that it is difficult to convince people to reject offers from giants such as Google, Facebook, Uber, Airbnb, etc., to work for small companies that are at risk of losing interviews. But this is the task of a great founding team. They must be able to inspire smart people to work for them, clearly articulate the company's vision to persuade high-skilled people, and the company has a chance to succeed.
The students in the top schools are a little different: they often have the most choices for what to do in the future, and if they choose to do one thing, the opportunity cost is the highest. So, if you can convince Harvard graduates to join your company, you are either really good at inspiring or really offering them a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Please note that I am definitely not saying that early excellent employees are only from top schools, or that all (and even most) top school students can become excellent early employees. These two statements are obviously wrong. What I am saying is: being able to recruit from top schools or tech giants (such as former Google or former Facebook employees) is a good sign that the startup is hiring good people and has the ability to do it. at this point.
Why should we judge by virtue of past schools and companies? Mainly because it is more efficient. Looking at the open source of each employee seems too much and only valid for the technician. For the founder of a company, the extent of this due diligence is absolutely necessary (because the founder is from Stanford, so the startup is excellent, the idea is terrible), but for the background of early employees This may not be necessary.
Of course, this is just my suggestion. At this point, people who are more experienced than me may disagree with me.
You might ask: Why is it important to hire good early employees? It's really important because early employees will play the role of your mentor and in many cases become the company's leader. In addition to the founders, early employees will be the ones that have the greatest impact on the company's fate. Relaxing the recruitment criteria is tempting, but there is a delicate balance here. For example, impetuous and radical early employees are likely to build an impetuous and radical company.
Investor background
|
If I am looking for a job, I see that a company is invested by Sequoia Capital and I will be happy to work for them - even if their founder is only five years old.
Here is a list of companies that Sequoia Capital leads in Round A or Round B (or both rounds):
Apple, Google, Yahoo, Stripe, Dropbox, YouTube, Instagram, Airbnb and WhatsApp.
Sequoia has had more than 1,000 investments since 1972 and has acquired 209 companies, 69 of which are listed. Their mission statement is as follows:
creativity. Born in sorrow. Resolute. determine. People who are not optimistic. Rebellious. Independent thinker. Warriors and true believers.
These are the founders of the company we work with. They are very rare. We were ecstatic when we found them.
We take our own work very seriously and carefully choose the words that describe it. We do not use the words "transaction" or "exit". Although we are sometimes called investors, we don't think so. We consider ourselves to be long-term partners.
We help them boldly build legendary companies.
If this is not the spirit of Silicon Valley, then I don't know what it is. This is a standard, I want to give it 4.5 stars, but even the investors themselves will warn and be careful about overvaluation. So I compromised and gave it 4 stars.
Among Silicon Valley investors, there is a hierarchy. The top is composed of Sequoia Capital, Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers (KPCB), Greylock, Benchmark, Accel and Andreessen Horowitz. Other well-known venture capital firms include General Catalyst, New Enterprise Associates (NEA) and Lightspeed. In general, these venture capital firms are able to attract the best founders, win the best deals, and demonstrate the highest returns.
However, even the best companies often miss big deals, so failing to raise funds from the above capital is not necessarily a defect. This is especially true for companies established outside the United States and founders who may be weakly connected to Silicon Valley. (Although these investment companies are already very good at identifying tomorrow's stars).
On the other hand, not all companies invested by top venture capital firms are excellent workplaces. Venture capital firms also invest in a large number of failed companies, which is the nature of their business. Not only that, promising companies sometimes achieve growth at the expense of their culture or values. Even if there is support from Sequoia behind it, such start-ups should avoid it.
Each round of financing
The statistics in this section are based on the TechCrunch 2017 article, which focuses on 15,600 US technology companies established between 2003 and 2013.
I also compare these numbers with the data in the 2016 "Business Insider" article. The BI statistics are slightly more conservative.
The financing amount of a company is a good indicator of how much risk the startup faces, or in other words, the possibility of success of the company to some extent.
This does not always mean that joining a company that is financing to the C round is better than joining a company that only finances to the B round, because there is a balance here. The C-round company will provide less equity, so the potential upside is small. In addition, certain types of financing rounds may actually indicate a problem with the company – especially down rounds and debt financing.
Companies that have not been externally financed should be considered “very riskyâ€, and if such a company is not given the founder’s equity, it should be highly suspected (especially because you are likely to pay for a period of time) Little or no salary).
After the seed round financing, a company officially became an investment startup, but it is still “high riskâ€, because only about 40% of the companies that have been funded by the seed round have lived in the A round, of which only 9% eventually Acquired. The seed round is usually invested by individual investors (ie angels), specialized funds like Y Combinator, founder funds and SV angels, typically involving a capital of $0.5-1 million.
|
Startup company "survival" curve, excluding acquisition (Source: TechCrunch)
|
Startup company cumulative acquisition chart (Source: TechCrunch)
Companies that have been financed by Series A should be considered “medium riskâ€. About 62.5% of these companies adhered to the B round, of which 7.5% were acquired, which means that the other 30% of the companies did not live. For career growth and financial advancement, this may be the best time to join a startup compared to other standards. The A-round company still has high growth potential and has been formally evaluated by a professional team responsible for evaluating early-stage startups. There is one more thing you need to consider now: to lead the reputation of the VC of the A round.
Companies that have been financed in Series B should be considered “low risk†and almost all of these companies are already making profits. The B-round investors focused on examining the evidence of the healthy growth of users or customers since the A round, which means that the B-round company has not only been verified on the company's foundation (team, product, market), but also withstood the test of its products. As of July 2015, the median round of financing for Round B was $18.4 million, which means that the median valuation of Series B companies was approximately $100 million.
An important factor to consider when evaluating the financing history of a startup is the final round of financing. If a B-round company established in 2005 has not received any funds and no IPO since 2008, then it may be dependent on its own income, its growth may slow down (that is, it is not a real venture), or It is close to death.
It is worth noting that companies that have been financed in Series B or more should be able to provide basic wages comparable to those of large listed companies. For new college graduates, the average base salary for top technology companies in San Francisco as of mid-2017 was $110,000. Think about this number dialectically (and certainly don't ignore the difference in the cost of living in different cities), but if your offer is much lower than this, then you are in a company with an unusual compensation structure (should be providing significant Above average equity, or get an unfair offer.
Also note that the subsequent rounds of financing, such as Round D or Round E, do not mean that the company will be free from death. In the history of Silicon Valley, there are many startups with a valuation of more than $1 billion. Later, the purchase price is much lower than the valuation (such as Gilt Groupe, One Kings Lane, LivingSocial), and there are many rounds of financing and then messing up. the company.
I strongly recommend asking the company's founder or CEO about the company's current funding status during the interview process. This can estimate how long a company can support without financing, under the company's cash position and current spending conditions. If the answer to this question is flashing, it should be vigilant.
position
Every year, Wealthfront identifies a group of “helping career†technology companies for aspiring young professionals by investigating partners in 14 top venture capital firms. The eligibility for the list is: 1) the rate of return is between 20 million and 300 million US dollars; 2) the growth rate is over 50% in the next three to four years.
Wealthfront identified 132 such companies in 2017. About 61% of them are located in the San Francisco Bay Area, followed by New York 10%, Boston 5%, Southern California 5%, and Seattle 4%. About 58% of Bay Area companies are located in San Francisco.
See the table below:
|
Wealthfront's list of "Helping Career" technology companies, 2017 vs 2016, depending on location (Source: Source: Wealthfront Blog)
The company location should be considered a more important piece of information. Companies in San Francisco certainly don't necessarily succeed, but companies based in the Bay Area or New York (and possibly Boston, Seattle or LA) may be more motivated to seek investors, attract and retain good employees.
Personal fitness
A company is no better, and its development direction may not be suitable for you. You may be interested in machine learning, but think that the application of this technology is super boring.
You may have found a job in a company that provides a service plan around machine learning technology (Note 8), and the company's business is to help genomics researchers build data pipelines more effectively and visualize the results, but you don't have interest.
You may also find a job at a 2C company that uses machine learning to personalize the content provided to users and customize the display of advertising based on the cookies they visit on the site. You find that linear regression is still doing very well on these tasks, and you can't help but doubt your own work every day.
What I want to suggest is that you should keep an open mind about the issues you might be interested in and the types of work you want to do. Don't judge the company's business with just one sentence. Instead, take the time to understand what the startups are really doing, why the issues they are trying to solve are important, and the direct and future markets in which they work.
Some startup mission statements are boring, but the work is very influential (and, by the way, scores are high on all other criteria).
Many graduates are only interested in solving the most difficult problems. If you are one of these people, I predict that you will change your mind over time. I think the students' mentality is like this. I hope to challenge myself and prove my ability. However, as you get older, other things start to become important, such as personal experience, why you are proud, how you want your child to see you in the future, and so on.
How can your work add value to the world? This is not something that every startup can give you. For such work and startups, life is too short.
Conclusion
Although we have just discussed some of the basic criteria for evaluating startups, some important things are that numbers cannot be presented.
For example, how many users like this product? Will they recommend their friends to use this product?
What kind of product is this company built? Courageous researchers and entrepreneurs pursue two issues:
A system from 0 to 1. These are groundbreaking products that have never been seen before.
From 1 to 10 systems. These products are at least an order of magnitude better than currently used.
The paradox of entrepreneurship is that it is often easier to build a company to solve difficult problems than to solve simple problems. Space exploration, driverless cars, healing infections – these are questions that inspire and attract smart people to overcome.
But don't underestimate those products that look like toys. Facebook used to be just a tool used by Harvard students, while Snapchat is more like "playing."今天，Facebook连接世界å„地的20亿人，Snapchatä½¿äº¿ä¸‡äººæ›´åŠ çœŸå®žåœ°æ²Ÿé€šã€‚
这也是第一æ¡æ ‡å‡†å˜å¾—有用的地方。早期的Facebookç”¨æˆ·ä¼šèŠ±å¥½å‡ ä¸ªå°æ—¶ç‚¹å‡»æŸ¥çœ‹å…¶ä»–用户的个人资料（好的，也许有些人ä»ç„¶åœ¨è¿™æ ·åšï¼‰ï¼ŒFacebook给用户æ供的数æ®å®žåœ¨å¤ªæœ‰æ–™äº†ã€‚在å‘布一年多以åŽï¼ŒSnapchat用户æ¯å¤©å‘é€å¤§çº¦2000万次snap。
移动互è”网时代催生了谷æŒï¼ŒFacebook，亚马逊这三强。谷æŒå½’档世界的信æ¯ï¼ŒFacebook归类世界的人，亚马逊归档世界的产å“。而最新的一股力é‡ä¹Ÿåœ¨å´›èµ·ï¼ŒWhatsApp代表的消æ¯ä¼ 递（å³ä½Žå»¶è¿Ÿï¼ŒåŸºäºŽç§»åŠ¨ç½‘络的消æ¯äº¤æ¢ï¼‰ï¼ŒSnap代表的摄åƒæœºï¼ˆå³åŒå‘dual-face的集æˆè®°å½•è®¾å¤‡ï¼‰å’ŒUber代表的ä½ç½®ï¼ˆå³é«˜ç²¾åº¦å…¨çƒGPS）。
类似的，æ¯ä¸ªæŠ€æœ¯æ³¢åŠ¨éƒ½ä¼šäº§ç”Ÿå„ç§å„æ ·çš„å…¬å¸ï¼Œä½†æ ¹æœ¬è¿˜æ˜¯æŠ“ä½æœ€æ ¹æœ¬ï¼Œæœ€å®¹æ˜“实现的产å“。最好的公å¸å€¾å‘于在æ¤å‰ä»Žæœªä¸€äººæ¶‰çŒŽçš„垂直领域开始执行，然åŽè¿…速扩大，实现更广泛的潜力。谷æŒæ—©æœŸæŽ’åæ–‡å—页é¢ï¼ŒFacebook最åˆè¿žæŽ¥å¤§å¦ç”Ÿï¼Œè€Œæ—©æœŸçš„亚马逊å–书。今天，谷æŒæ£åœ¨ä½¿ç”¨AIæ¥é©±åŠ¨æ±½è½¦ï¼ŒFacebookæ£åœ¨ç”¨Wi-Fiè¿žæŽ¥ä¸–ç•Œï¼Œè€Œäºšé©¬é€Šåˆ™æŽ¨å‡ºæ— äººæœºå®žçŽ°è‡ªåŠ¨åŒ–äº¤ä»˜ã€‚
è¿™ä¸æ˜¯è¯´ä¸€å®¶åˆ›ä¸šå…¬å¸éœ€è¦å¯¹æ¯”è°·æŒã€Facebook和亚马逊æ‰å€¼å¾—åŠ å…¥ã€‚ä½†æ˜¯ï¼Œç ”ç©¶çœŸæ£æˆåŠŸçš„å…¬å¸çš„特点，å´èƒ½å‘Šè¯‰ä½ 应该寻找什么。当然，并ä¸æ˜¯æ¯ä¸ªåˆ›ä¸šéƒ½æœ‰ä¸€ä¸ªå…‰è¾‰çš„èµ·æºã€‚Airbnb，SpaceX和特斯拉ç‰å…¬å¸æ—©æœŸéƒ½ç»åŽ†äº†è¿‘乎倒é—çš„ç»åŽ†ã€‚更多的情况下，伟大是牺牲æ¢æ¥çš„。
æ‰€ä»¥ï¼Œè™½ç„¶ä½ æ²¡æ³•å°†æ¯å®¶å…¬å¸ä¸ŽInstagram进行比较——Instagram在2010å¹´10月推出åŽä¸åˆ°ä¸€å‘¨å°±è¶…过了10万åç”¨æˆ·ï¼Œä½†æ˜¯ï¼Œä½ å¯ä»¥å¦ç€åŽ»å‘现规律和特点，看公å¸æ˜¯å¦æœ‰å¸Œæœ›ï¼Œå¹¶ä¸”èƒ½è®©ä½ åšæˆä¸€äº›äº‹æƒ…。
å¸Œæœ›è¿™ç¯‡æ–‡ç« èƒ½ä½œä¸ºä¸€ä»½æœ‰ç”¨çš„æŒ‡å—ï¼ŒåŠ©ä½ è¯†åˆ«æœ‰æ½œåŠ›çš„åˆåˆ›å…¬å¸ã€‚
原文地å€ï¼š1.http://
2.http://#strength-of-early-employees
Organic Wool Socks,Infant Socks,Winter Warm Children Socks,Breathable Cotton Socks
Shaoxing Evergreen Knitting Co., Ltd. , https://www.egsock.com