Showing posts with label union square ventures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label union square ventures. Show all posts

Thursday, April 02, 2009

Wash Post/Tech Crunch: Google to buy Twitter (Rumour) / 2 sources +$250MM


From TechCrunch..."from two separate people close to the negotiations: Google is in late stage negotiations to acquire Twitter. We don't know the price but can assume its well, well north of the $250 million valuation that they saw in their recent funding."

"If this is accurate, it’s a brilliant deal for Google - the value of Twitter is only going to go up over time."

Also, this would be a great deal for the 20 or so Twitter employees as well as Twitter venture investors Spark Capital and Union Square Ventures. Google sure loves to overpay for companies especially when that Company was only recently trying to raise a funding round. It will be quite sad to see Twitter become one of the many subsidiaries lost inside of the Google Machine.

Saturday, November 03, 2007

SiliconAlley: Fred Wilson: How to Say "We're Just Not That Into You"

"SAI contributor and USV partner Fred Wilson explains that a huge part of his job is saying "No." Unlike some investors, he feels bad enough about doing this that he usually takes a few minutes to do it. Even when the problem is not the idea, but the entrepreneur (you). So don't shoot the messenger!
Saying No
That's what I do all day. Every day. Dozens of times a day. I try to reply to every email from every entrepreneur who sends us an investment opportunity. I don't achieve that goal and sometimes I don't even get close.
But at least half the time, probably 2/3 of the time, I just reply with a no. And I try to explain in each and every one why the answer is no. Because email is time consuming, the explanation is often one or two lines. Something like "it doesn't fit into our investment strategy" or "we don't invest in content businesses" or "it's too early state" or "it's too late stage". I realize that these reasons are barely useful. But at least it's better than "no thanks"..."