[jacquesm]

It's been done, I know of a couple of these. They start out well intentioned and end up being backseat drivers in every company they launch, usually with bad side effects.

[bgroat]

I think the big distinction is avoiding launching companies and instead launching products.

I'm increasingly convinced that very few products need to be companies, and the insistence that they do is why a lot of them end up so shitty.

[yowlingcat]

Having seen this model before, I think the challenge there is incentives, motivation and focus. If you have a winner, it's likely that through power law effects it makes sense to double down on it unless you have too much capital to deploy through that company.

With that said, I think running a product studio before you find product market fit or the killer company is not a bad idea, especially if you can work directly with LPs to source the funds. Then the challenge is just making sure people don't step on each other's toes when you staff the winner.

[bgroat]

It's still early days, and there are a lot of hypotheses that will be invalidated.

But one of my goals at the moment is to *not* double-down on winners. The thesis being, whatever is working, is clearly working.

I think a lot of products are killer, and should be left alone, and "doubling-down" or "iterating" might make them worse.

For example, Reddit v. HackerNews

[jacquesm]

> But one of my goals at the moment is to not double-down on winners. The thesis being, whatever is working, is clearly working.

Then you will likely end up so far diluted that you won't make enough on your winners to cover your losses. It's a tricky balance to find.