[michaelpinto]

As much as I hate the idea of this model it's not too different than a Hollywood producer finding a director, cast and other creative talent to make their films. Personally I love the work of writer/directors but on the flip side there are quite a few great films that were put together by producers. Producers are interesting because they're good at fundraising and then coming up with the "bid idea" — and of course putting together a dream team. I wouldn't worry about this model if I were an entrepreneur because it might make that path more creative as VCs might be less risk adverse when pushing their own ideas.

[zem]

this is why i love the idea of the model. it will supplement all the other models out there, not displace them, in much the same way as not every producer wants to drive the film in a hands-on manner. why do you hate it?

[michaelpinto]

Well looking at Hollywood the mega-producers tend to gravitate to big films that are focused on box office rather than creating a great film. The producer has more insecurity than a writer/director so creativity is substituted for short cuts like a well known license or a big star in a safe film. The result is a film like Transformers -- cool eye candy, makes real money yet it's an average film.

I prefer a VC model where Weinstein brothers find a Tarantino and make a film that not only makes money but can be watched with admiration for years to come. This isn't to say that Hollywood producers in days of old weren't talented, but these days you get bland product.

The same thing will happen with tech. A VC as producer may be good at identifying a unique niche that needs a product (say medical billing software) but you won't get a gem like a Flickr or Facebook that way. And that's not to say that the producer model is wrong, but it's not as much fun.

[zem]

yes, but there'll be other vcs and other teams to make the fun apps. this will just add to the ecosystem, and who knows, we might get some useful-if-boring and profitable software out of it.