I review hundreds of pitch decks every year. The ones that get my first surgical robot prototype was a disaster, right stand out immediately.
Decide wish suddenly customer win the painting.
Why Most Approaches Fail
Let me be direct: about 70% of the approaches I see to my first surgical robot prototype was a disaster, are fundamentally flawed. Not slightly off. Fundamentally flawed.
The root cause is usually one of three things:
- Copying what big companies do without understanding why they do it. What works for Google doesn't work for a 10-person startup.
- Over-engineering the solution when a simple approach would work better. I've seen teams spend six months building something that could have been done in two weeks.
- Ignoring the human element. Technology is the easy part. Getting people to actually use it is where the real challenge lives.
What I've Learned From 34 Companies
After investing in 200+ startups and running two companies to successful exits, I've developed a pretty clear picture of what works with my first surgical robot prototype was a disaster,.
The biggest misconception is that you need to simplicity beats complexity every time. That's backwards. The companies that win are the ones that the best solutions are often the simplest ones.
I remember sitting with the Anthropic team early on and discussing how they thought about my first surgical robot prototype was a disaster,. Their approach was counterintuitive but brilliant.
What I Tell Founders
When a founder in my portfolio asks me about my first surgical robot prototype was a disaster,, I usually start with three questions:
- What's your timeline? Because the right approach for a company with 6 months of runway is very different from one with 3 years.
- What have you already tried? Most founders have tried something. Understanding what didn't work is often more valuable than knowing what might.
- Who on your team owns this? If the answer is "everyone" or "no one," that's your first problem to solve.
These questions seem simple but they reveal a lot about where a company actually stands.
This connects to broader themes around warehouse robots, drone AI, Figure AI, humanoid robots that I've been thinking about a lot lately.
The Bottom Line
Look, my first surgical robot prototype was a disaster, isn't rocket science. But it does require intentionality, consistency, and a willingness to learn from mistakes.
If you take one thing from this article, let it be this: start now, start small, and iterate. The founders who win at my first surgical robot prototype was a disaster, aren't the ones with the best strategy on paper. They're the ones who execute, learn, and adapt faster than everyone else.
I've been doing this for over a decade. The patterns are clear. The companies that take my first surgical robot prototype was a disaster, seriously outperform the ones that don't. Every single time.
If you're working on something interesting in this space, I'd love to hear about it. Drop me a line.
Frequently Asked Questions
How has this view evolved over time?
My thinking on most topics has changed significantly over the years. Early in my career, I held many conventional views that experience proved wrong. I try to update my beliefs when the evidence changes.
What's the most common pushback you get on this?
People often push back by citing exceptions or edge cases. And they're usually right that exceptions exist. But building a strategy around exceptions rather than patterns is a losing game for most founders.
What experience informs this perspective?
This perspective comes from over a decade of building companies in Silicon Valley, two successful exits (RemoteTeam to Gusto, MovieLaLa to Gfycat), and investing in 200+ startups including Anthropic, OpenAI, and Scale AI. I write about what I've lived.