All I can say to the investors, with the best of hopes, is:

Good luck! You'll need it!

“At the core of PMF is the idea that you are producing something novel in some business and/or technical aspect, NOT that your are selling a product or service that already exists and PMF is there. For example, if you want to compete with Salesforce you already know there is a PMF, it is a CRM!”

PMF is not about building something novel. It is about ensuring your product solves a real and critical problem for your target segment. Only customers are the experts on their problems and priorities. Entrepreneurs are experts on solving problems but we too often solve the wrong problems in elaborate ways.

Salespeople buy Salesforce today because everyone else buys Salesforce. CRMs come in all shapes and sizes. To find PMF for your CRM you need to niche down to find a segment that is underserved by Salesforce.

You can only do this by doing actual discovery interviews with prospects in an unbiased way where you explore their experience around specific problem areas without ever mentioning your brilliant solution - as proposing a specific solution is likely to bias your subject. This is hard for founders as we tend to fall in love with our ideas and often slip into pitch mode mid-interview. This is a fundamental mistake.

[1] Will Wright (designer of SimCity) will be interviewing me about the book on July 19th at 2PM ET. We thought it would be fun to turn the tables and have him interview someone else for a change. On Twitch, free, online, and live. Hosted by ROMchip. RSVP here: https://www.tickettailor.com/events/romchipajournalofgamehis...

[2] Stewart Brand wrote a brief review on X I'm still in disbelief over ("It is one of the best origin stories ever told and the best account I've seen of how innovation actually occurs in computerdom."). Read more here: https://twitter.com/stewartbrand/status/1800941614287946003

Academia, especially in the US and Canada, only has one viable long-term job: a faculty position. Everything else is ostensibly “training” for that job and there’s increasing pressure to make that transition as quickly as possible, in part because the low pay and stability of the other positions.

This is stupid. Since professors produce trainees, the competition gets exponentially worse. At the same time, using mostly new workers that are constantly churning over makes it hard to do good research. This is exacerbated by the emphasis on first/last author publications, which disincentivizes division of labor and teamwork. Furthermore, studies have found that outcome for the trainees are better when a mix of senior people are around.

Despite this, the NIH funds virtually no staff scientists: only one institute (NCI) has a staff scientist mechanism and it’s very small (~50?) compared to the rest of the program. Give people longer contracts (5 years) renewable bases on the output of the teams they enable, and everyone would win.