Wednesday, June 02, 2004

What Would Roger Own? Not Nano


AlwaysOn's Tony Perkins interviews "uber-investor" Roger McNamee, who says he wouldn't touch this technology with a 10-nanometer pole. Here's what McNamee says:

    I'm personally totally uninterested in nanotechnology. And I'm uninterested in it because we were at the earliest phases of the infrastructure. I haven't the faintest idea what the applications are and I'm an applications investor. I'm not a true VC. I'll always be a Series B and beyond. I'm a product person. And I can't even tell you by class what nano-technology is really going to do.

    So I think if you do nanotechnology, you've got to really believe in it, because you're going to be at it 10 or 15 years before there's a real product. And for some of you, that might be the right answer. It just wouldn't be right for me. So I'm not going to make any qualitative statement about the attractiveness of the opportunity so much as it's just a bad fit for my personality. If you're going to be an investor, knowing what's a good fit for your personality I think is fundamental." More here.

As I've written before, nano is only for the brave and the foolish.

1 comment:

Howard Lovy said...

Main Entry: per·spi·ca·ciousPronunciation: "p&r-sp&-'kA-sh&s
Function: adjectiveEtymology: Latin perspicac-, perspicax, from perspicere: of acute mental vision or discernment : KEEN
synonym see SHREWD