ReportWire

Tag: Kleiner Perkins

  • Silicon Valley legend Kleiner Perkins was written off. Then an unlikely VC showed up | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    Independently and immediately, a flood of people reached the same conclusion: This had to be a mistake.

    It was the summer of 2017, and as word spread that Mamoon Hamid was joining venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, some people wondered if it was a joke, or “fake news.” And they didn’t hold back. 

    “I got calls from friends in the venture business, other GPs [general partners], asking: ‘Are you sure this is happening? Is this real?’” Hamid recounts. “People kept asking: ‘What are you doing?’” 

    One concerned friend even asked Hamid if he’d already signed anything (he had). 

    Hamid had helped build one of Silicon Valley’s buzziest new VC firms, Social Capital, leading a string of wins including investments in Box (one of 2015’s biggest IPOs) and Slack (at the time valued at $5.1 billion). Kleiner Perkins on the other hand, was widely viewed as an institution in decline, a bit like the largest gold-plated ship of a 19th-century fleet—grand for where it had been, but not for where it was heading.

    By all accounts, Hamid—measured and soft-spoken, inclined to listen before speaking—was doing something irrational, especially in Silicon Valley, where many people would rather start something new than fix something broken. Venture capital firms don’t turn around, generally speaking. Typically when their golden era fades, the founders retire, and they wind down the firm. VC turnaround stories are all but unheard-of.

    But Kleiner Perkins was not just any firm to Hamid. The firm had been the inspiration that led him to a career in venture capital, and John Doerr, the legendary Kleiner rainmaker who made early bets on Google, Amazon, and Netscape, had been his role model.

    Meanwhile, Social Capital, the firm Hamid helped start in 2011, had its own issues. Chamath Palihapitiya, Hamid’s cofounder, was reportedly growing disenchanted with the traditional venture investing model, leading to friction with limited partners (Social Capital has since become a private office).

    Still, says one VC insider, it would have much been easier for Hamid to start his own fund than embark on a fix-it job. Hamid told his wife, Aaliya, a doctor, to give him 18 months to prove himself. 

    Eight years later, signs of the Hamid era at Kleiner are everywhere, from the physical layout of the office to the firm’s narrowed focus. For the first time since Hamid took the helm, Kleiner opened its doors to a journalist, giving Fortune a rare opportunity to sit in on partner investment meetings and interview the founders and limited partners (LPs) that work with the firm. Kleiner’s investor team has both longtime stalwarts and new blood—including former Dropbox exec Ilya Fushman; its roster of portfolio companies includes some of the hottest AI names; and, according to many inside and outside the firm, the team’s operational metabolism has been dialed-up. 

    “What came across to me about KP was this combination of having this great brand, but having a lot of the energy and the hunger of being a startup firm—nothing was taken for granted,” says Parker Conrad, cofounder and CEO of Rippling, which Kleiner backed in 2019. 

    As is the case with many turnarounds, Kleiner hasn’t tried to turn back the clock and create a replica of its former self, but instead has evolved to find its footing in a new landscape. It now competes for deals with a broad array of financial heavyweights, from Wall Street banks to sovereign wealth funds. The new Kleiner is smaller and more focused than its previous incarnation—more boutique than mega. Now, as the AI boom inflates funding rounds and valuations to nosebleed levels, and raises the stakes for the VCs betting on startups, Hamid has the chance to show whether the firm he’s rebuilding can be truly competitive and define Silicon Valley’s next big chapter.

    Hits and misses

    Roughly a decade ago, Kleiner Perkins seemed to be at the end of a narrative arc that began 46 years earlier.

    The year that Tom Perkins and Eugene Kleiner started their namesake VC firm—1972—was one that minted many classics. The Godfather premiered, David Bowie dropped The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust, and Atari launched Pong, the first blockbuster video game. 

    Kleiner Perkins quickly made its own mark. Perkins picked the firm’s first big winner, investing $100,000 in Genentech, which would ultimately proffer a reported 42x return. Other hits followed, including Tandem Computers, along with new partners, with Frank Caufield and Brook Byers joining in 1977. But it was the addition of John Doerr, an engineer and marketing manager from chipmaker Intel, that transformed Kleiner into a global business superstar. Doerr was known as intellectually boundless and possessed a kind of charisma that was rooted in sincerity. He emerged as the firm’s dotcom rainmaker, backing Amazon, Google, Sun Microsystems, Compaq, and Netscape, among others. Sebastian Mallaby, in his VC tome, The Power Law, writes there was a common understanding that Kleiner’s portfolio accounted for “as much as a third of the market value created from the internet.”

    John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins in 2015.

    Steve Jennings and Getty Images

    As the new millennium began, Doerr, then running the firm, began to shift Kleiner’s focus to cleantech investments, which he vowed would be “bigger than the internet.” There were a few winners like Bloom Energy (Kleiner owned 15% at its 2018 IPO) and SolarCity (acquired by Tesla in 2016 for $2.6 billion). But there were also some epic losses, including the troubled Fisker Automotive, which filed for bankruptcy in 2013, and MiaSolé, a solar startup reportedly once valued at $1 billion that sold to a Chinese company for a cratered $30 million.

    Internal tension about direction and leadership succession festered within the firm. Vinod Khosla, a hard-charger known for backing Juniper Networks—a $3 million investment that famously returned $7 billion for Kleiner—eventually left to set up his own shop. And a gender discrimination lawsuit filed by Ellen Pao, a junior partner, tarnished the firm’s reputation even though Kleiner ultimately won the case.  

    It’s no mystery then, why limited partners in the mid-2010s saw Kleiner as unsteady at best, grim at worst. The brand had retained some of its power, buying time, but patience also wore thin. One longtime institutional LP told Fortune that, around 2015, it was considering moving on from the storied firm. 

    “I looked at KP and said, ‘Great brand, but where are the returns?’ And it’s been dilutive to our returns for a long period of time,” the LP says. “At some point, you have to make hard decisions. We went in and had those conversations. This is a world where people don’t really walk away from these venture firms. So, they said, ‘Give us one more cycle. We’re making this right. We’re going to make sure this gets stewarded into the next generation.’” 

    Ted Schlein, a Kleiner partner and an advisor who’s been at the firm since 1996 and who himself was hired by firm cofounder Brook Byers, describes the challenges of operating a venture firm that succeeds over the long term: You need to get into the right deals and have the right team in place to chase those deals, all while not killing each other, he says.

    “There’s a collection of people that have to make good decisions together over and over, over and over again,” Schlein says. “And that’s hard. You have to get the right group. I always describe it this way: You need a group of partners where everyone cares about what each of the others has to say about a given topic.”

    ‘I want to control my destiny’

    Schlein had begun courting Hamid for the top job while he was still at Social Capital. For months, they met quietly at the bucolic Allied Arts Guild in Menlo Park, mostly just talking. Schlein had known of Hamid since his early days at U.S. Venture Partners, where he worked for Schlein’s father, and was struck by the contradictions Hamid embodied: competitive, yet kind; ambitious, but with a light touch.

    Those characteristics were likely part of Hamid’s makeup early on. He grew up first in Germany, then in Pakistan until he was 13. His family fell on hard times when his father’s salary transitioned from German deutsche marks to Pakistani rupees. 

    “There’s one moment I remember … One day at dinner, there’s just not enough food on the table,” Hamid says. “I felt that, in my life, I want to control my own destiny.”

    Hamid, now 47, recounts it now in a way that’s thoughtful and matter-of-fact. His family ultimately recovered and Hamid eventually went to the U.S., studying engineering at Purdue before attending Harvard Business School. Harvard was the only business school he applied to for one reason—it was where Doerr had gone. At 24, Hamid believed that venture capital, for all its chaos, was a path to autonomy, where a successful track record became a permanent credential. And in 2003, he was fixated on Kleiner Perkins.

    “I would study the bios of John Doerr and Vinod Khosla, who was still at Kleiner at the time,” Hamid recalls. “And I thought, ‘Okay, they’re both electrical engineers; they both worked at semiconductor companies; and they both went to business school … I applied to one business school, so it was high-stakes, and you had to write about an individual. And my essay was that I wanted to work at Kleiner Perkins, and emulate the career of John Doerr.”

    Kleiner Perkins

    In his first few weeks at Kleiner, Hamid committed to meeting everyone in the firm—from receptionists to executives—focusing on learning from both current and former employees to understand the firm’s history and challenges. During this time, he also began looking at deals and potential hires. Hamid had an eye toward bringing on another partner who’d be his counterpart, sounding board, and sometime foil. And there was really only one person he’d been eyeing from the moment he joined Kleiner: Ilya Fushman, the former head of product at Dropbox who was then at Index Ventures. 

    Fushman and Hamid had been tangentially circling each other for a long time. They’d been serving on the Slack board together. And, in a massively unlikely twist of fate, they had been indirectly connected years earlier, thousands of miles away from Silicon Valley. Fushman went to grade school in Germany with Hamid’s sister, and the two knew of each other vaguely. Neither is inclined to talk about this connection as dramatic or fated, but it highlights an essential truth—that the two share unconventional immigrant stories: Born in the Soviet Union, Fushman spent his early years in the Russian city of Kazan, among the last cities before Siberia. Raised by a family of Jewish academics who ultimately immigrated to the U.S., Fushman followed in their footsteps to a point, getting a PhD in physics from Caltech before joining Dropbox, back when its staff numbered 50 people. 

    Fushman admits to initially being bemused when he heard Hamid was leaving Social Capital to join Kleiner, a “historic brand” with an “unclear, uncertain future.” 

    But as he talked to Hamid, Fushman started to feel the pull himself. “There aren’t that many iconic tech turnarounds; there are perhaps a few,” says Fushman. “But I thought: ‘If we do this, it would be pretty amazing.’ That’s worth dedicating yourself to, and it’s worth leaving a great firm for.”

    Both Hamid and Fushman are earnest without being saccharine, and each will tell you plainly if they think something is nonsense—and their respect for one another is so clear it almost goes without saying: Hamid brings a (strangely) simultaneously ruthless and gentle approach to building companies, while Fushman, a blunt, straight-talking academic, is all precision and thoroughness. (Winston Weinberg, CEO of legal AI unicorn Harvey, told Fortune that Fushman is consistently the board member he can rely on to know decks inside and out.)

    Hamid, a religious Muslim, also exudes a spirituality that stands in contrast to many of his peers. It’s not direct, but it is subtext in how he thinks and the quiet role he plays in a venture landscape that’s increasingly loud, politicized, and crass. 

    “People don’t expect VCs to talk about faith, and how it drives their values, how they show up in the world, and the way they treat people,” says Arianna Huffington, who’s working with Hamid at her current company, Thrive Global. “You know how a lot of VCs and tech leaders think that, because we live in frenetic times, they need to match the frenetic pace of the times? It’s actually the opposite—the more frenetic the times, the more exponential the change, the more important it is to actually find that centered place in ourselves. And that is Mamoon.”

    Culture shift

    Hamid and Fushman quickly sought to reboot the Kleiner culture, instituting firm-wide offsites for the first time (including the front desk); nixing cubicles in favor of an open office plan that promoted collaboration; and introducing a mission: “Be the first call for founders who want to make history, and partner with them as company builders in pursuit of that goal.” 

    There were some bumps early on. Mary Meeker, the well-respected Wall Street analyst who had become a late-stage rainmaker at Kleiner by backing Facebook and Uber, reportedly bristled at the newcomers’ approach and soon left to start her own firm, Bond Capital.

    Hamid and Fushman replenished the ranks with new blood, even as the firm has made a point to stay small (there are currently five partners at Kleiner versus the 10 there were right before Hamid joined). 

    The most consequential hire in recent years: Leigh Marie Braswell—a math whiz kid from rural Alabama whose career started at Scale AI, when its staff numbered fewer than 10 people—who joined Kleiner from Founders Fund in 2023. Braswell thinks the ways Kleiner has stayed small have been uniquely helpful in winning AI deals.

    “When you think about partnering with the very best founders in AI right now, it’s frequently a competitive situation,” she says. “What do they prioritize? It’s one of the hardest parts of the job, being really honest with yourself about what these founders actually want. It’s a combination of a good relationship with an individual and the individual’s firm … and that’s something that doesn’t scale.”

    Two of Kleiner’s recent AI exits—Windsurf and Neon—are linked to Braswell, who’s been whispered about across the industry as a star in the making. Ultimately, however, it was Hamid’s first deal at Kleiner that, years later, would cement the firm’s turnaround. 

    The returns

    Dylan Field met Hamid when he was still at Social Capital—and though he wasn’t sure if Hamid was interested in investing in his startup, he sensed a connection. 

    “He understood our product immediately when others didn’t,” Field, the cofounder and CEO of Figma, says, over the phone. “Everyone that encountered it didn’t get it. Mamoon treated it like it was the most obvious thing.”

    Dylan Field gestures with his arms while speaking
    Dylan Field, cofounder and CEO of Figma.

    MICHAEL NAGLE—Bloomberg/Getty Images

    Field, drawn to Hamid’s “laid-back style” that could be “very competitive and intense” when it needed to be, stayed in touch as Hamid transitioned to Kleiner. In his first deal at Kleiner, Hamid led Figma’s $25 million Series B. And last year, Figma went public at a $19.3 billion valuation, in one of the highest-profile IPOs of the year. Even as Figma’s stock has taken a hit, at the current price the multiple from the initial investment is roughly 90x, and is right up there with Kleiner’s best-ever returns, including Amazon, Google, and Juniper, the firm says. Not including Figma—or any of the firm’s other promising AI-era investments like Vlad Tenev’s Harmonic, Ilya Sutskever’s Safe Superintelligence, Synthesia, Glean, Anthropic, and Applied Intuition—Kleiner has now returned $13 billion to its LPs since 2018. 

    These returns have come from the exits of companies like AppDynamics, Beyond Meat, DoorDash, Nest, Peloton, Pinterest, Slack, Spotify, Twilio, Uber, and UiPath. In some cases, these are investments the current team made, like Robinhood, or deals that the team shepherded through, like Square. The firm is also now invested in some of the AI era’s brightest stars, from AI medicine startup OpenEvidence, valued at $12 billion, to legal AI company Harvey, valued at $8 billion. (Doerr remains chairman of Kleiner, and still helps close deals with Hamid and the team—the most recent example: Doerr was in the room when OpenEvidence presented for the Series B round that Kleiner went on to lead.) 

    The firm has raised more than $6 billion in capital across several funds in the Hamid-Fushman era, and is currently raising more capital, a source familiar with the matter says. (Kleiner declined comment.) The rumored new round is expected to be slightly larger than Kleiner’s last round in 2024, which included the $825 million KP21 fund focused on early-stage investments and the $1.2 billion KP Select III, aimed at “high inflection deals” (basically, follow-ons and deals with startups Kleiner has built relationships with). 

    It’s a hard thing, to define what changed from the inside, but speaking to a long stretch of Kleiner watchers and employees, one thing is clear: The culture of the firm did change, in a way that’s hard to quantify but real. The firm-wide offsites and agreed-upon mission certainly helped, but Hamid and Fushman aren’t afraid to have a little fun—as evidenced by the ’80s movie theme they created for the KP Select III fund: Kleiner Perkins, they said, was going back to the future. 

    Whereas a rigid framework of subgroups and rules once restricted the investments that Kleiner partners could make, the small team of partners now has access to any of the funds. Investing decisions are conviction-based, with a sponsoring partner presenting before the other partners (all physically present in the same room), but there is no voting. 

    “We have more latitude for healthy debate,” says Josh Coyne, a partner at Kleiner since 2017, hired right around the time Hamid showed up (and still there). “I think there was more hierarchy in the earlier days, and that’s shifted quite a bit.” 

    One person who’s been directly linked to Kleiner for a long time thinks the key thing that Fushman and Hamid fixed is speed—VC has become increasingly fast-paced, with founders expecting rapid decision-making. In 2018, Hamid and Fushman instituted a new scout fund precisely to solve this problem, hastening the decision process at Kleiner from weeks to days in one fell swoop. The firm also narrowed its focus: After Meeker left, Hamid felt strongly that Kleiner needed to return to its early-stage origins, both for near-term agility and long-term performance. 

    “Kleiner definitely got beat up a little bit—that they weren’t as nimble as they should have been,” the person notes. “And maybe they weren’t. You’ve got to keep up with your founders … I see Ilya and Mamoon understanding that speed.”

    Kleiner Perkins

    Back to the future

    Can a (comparatively) small firm compete with giants? 

    As has always been the case in the venture business, the connection between the founder and the investing partner is key. And by staying lean and focused, Hamid is betting on predictability and quality control. 

    “We’d rather stay small than have more people who dilute the brand out there,” he says on the topic of expanding the firm’s ranks. The firm’s partners are “meeting with founders, and they’re providing an impression of what Kleiner Perkins is. And if that’s not the right impression, we’d rather not have it.”

    The institutional LP representative who’s long watched Kleiner, and once threatened to leave altogether, believes that the firm is moving in the right direction, in part on the back of Hamid’s undeniable success. The question isn’t if Hamid is one of the great investors of his generation, but where he fits in that paradigm. 

    “He’s gonna be in the pantheon,” the LP says. “You can be a demigod, or you can be a god. He’s on Mount Olympus, but the question is: Where?”

    Though that is, in the end, the biggest challenge Kleiner faces from here: That it can’t just be Hamid, that in a changing venture landscape, rife with megacap firms and commoditized capital, there is little margin for error. To stay competitive, Kleiner will need every partner plugged into the pipeline of game-changing startups and visionary founders. 

    “I think you just have to be paranoid,” Hamid says. “Never be satisfied, because then laziness creeps in. The day I tell myself, ‘We’re on the right track,’ is where I lose the discipline.”

    Kleiner is operating with less capital and a smaller margin for error than its larger rivals. But with that risk comes more returns-based upside. And Kleiner needs winners to be not only the VC firm of the past, but of the future. 

    In other words, Hamid needs to do what he did eight years ago, and continue to stun his peers.

    [ad_2]

    Allie Garfinkle

    Source link

  • Inside Harvey: How a first-year legal associate built one of Silicon Valley’s hottest startups | TechCrunch

    [ad_1]

    Legal AI might not sound like the sexiest category in Silicon Valley, but Harvey‘s CEO Winston Weinberg has captured the attention of virtually every top-tier investor in the Valley. The company’s cap table reads like a who’s who of venture capital: the OpenAI Startup Fund (its first institutional investor), Sequoia Capital, Kleiner Perkins, Elad Gil, Google Ventures, Coatue, and most recently, Andreessen Horowitz.

    The San Francisco-based company’s valuation skyrocketed from $3 billion in February 2025 to $5 billion in June to $8 billion in late October — a rise that reflects both the bonkers price tags awarded to AI companies, and Harvey’s ability to win over major law firms and corporate legal departments.

    In fact, the startup now claims 235 clients across 63 countries, including a majority of the top 10 U.S. law firms. It also says it surpassed $100 million in annual recurring revenue as of August.

    TechCrunch spoke with Weinberg for this week’s StrictlyVC Download podcast to ask about the wild ride that he and co-founder Gabe Pereyra have been on so far. During that chat, he shared how a cold email sent a few summers ago to Sam Altman changed everything; why he believes lawyers will benefit rather than suffer from AI; and how Harvey is tackling the technically complex challenge of building a truly multiplayer platform that navigates ethical walls and data permissioning across dozens of countries.

    This interview has been edited lightly for length. For the full monty, check out the podcast.

    TechCrunch: You started as a first-year associate at O’Melveny & Myers. When did you realize AI could transform legal work?

    Winston Weinberg: So my co-founder was working at Meta at the time; he was also my roommate. He was showing me GPT-3, and in the beginning, I swear to God, the main use case I had for it was running a Dungeons and Dragons game with friends in LA. Then I was assigned to this landlord-tenant case at O’Melveny, and I didn’t know anything about landlord-tenant law. I started using GPT-3 to work on it.

    Techcrunch event

    San Francisco
    |
    October 13-15, 2026

    My co-founder Gabe and I figured out we could do chain-of-thought prompting before that was really a thing. We created this super long chain-of-thought prompt over California landlord-tenant statutes. We grabbed 100 questions from r/legaladvice [on Reddit] and ran that prompt over them, then gave the question-answer pairs to three landlord-tenant attorneys without saying anything about AI.

    We just said, “A potential customer asked this question, here’s the answer—would you make any edits or would you send this as is?” On 86 of the 100 samples, two out of three attorneys or more said they would send it with zero edits. That was the moment when we were like, wow, this entire industry can be transformed by this technology.

    TC: What happened next?

    Weinberg: We cold-emailed Sam Altman and Jason Kwon, who was the general counsel at OpenAI. We figured we had to email a lawyer because otherwise the person wouldn’t know if the outputs were right. On the morning of July 4 at 10 a.m. — I remember this specifically because it was July 4 — we got on a call with them and kind of the rest of the C-suite at OpenAI, and we made our pitch.

    TC: Did they write a check right away?

    Weinberg: Yeah. It’s the OpenAI Startup Fund [they are the second-largest investor in Harvey]. OpenAI introduced us to our angel investors at the time, Sarah Guo and Elad Gil, and then everything else from there we were doing ourselves. I actually didn’t have any friends that worked in tech. I didn’t grow up in San Francisco. I didn’t know who the top VCs were. I didn’t understand how you’re supposed to fundraise. This was all just net new to me.

    TC: For someone who wasn’t familiar with the VC scene, you’ve raised a lot of money. What enabled you to raise so much?

    Weinberg: I might say something the VC community might not love, but I strongly believe that the best way to raise money is to just make sure your company is doing super well. I think there’s a lot of advice out there about networking, but to me, the most important thing is to spend almost the entire time on your business, and then find VCs who want to do that with you.

    You need to find a few partners who you think are going to go the distance with you. So, 99% of your time, focus on the business going well, and then spend time trying to find a few folks who you really think you can partner with and who will be there for you for the long run.

    TC: You hit $100 million in ARR in August. With around 400 employees, how close are you to break-even?

    Weinberg: Compute costs are more expensive for us than a lot of other things. We’re operating in more than 60 countries with data residency laws in all of them. For a long time, if you used multiple models in your product, you had to buy a bucket of compute — a minimum threshold — in every single one of those countries, even if you didn’t have enough clients yet to support that cost.

    Germany and Australia have incredibly strict data processing laws. You cannot send financial data outside of those countries. We’d set up Azure or AWS instances in every single one of those countries, but we’d only use them to close three or four large clients. Our margins look very good on a token basis, but they’re worse because we have to spend so much on upfront compute across so many jurisdictions. That will get solved over time.

    TC: Tell us about your sales process. How are you expanding globally?

    Weinberg: At the beginning of this year, about 4% of our revenue was from corporates and 96% from law firms. Right now, 33% of our revenue is from corporates, and my gut says, by the end of the year, that looks closer to 40%.
    In the beginning, we would take public litigation briefs from Pacer, find the partner who wrote it, put them into Harvey, and show them how they could argue against their own brief. That got massive attention because it was relevant to what they just did.

    But what was interesting is once we got adoption at law firms, the law firms themselves would help us pitch to corporates. A firm like Latham will introduce Harvey to clients and say, “Hey, did you know this is how we can use AI to do XYZ?” So what started happening was law firms would actually help us sell to corporates because they want to collaborate in the system.

    TC: You refer to this as “multiplayer.” Can you expound on this as a growing area of focus?

    Weinberg: This is a huge problem. You’ve seen announcements from OpenAI and Microsoft about shared threads and company memory. That’s hard — you have to get the permissioning right so agents can access the right systems. But you’re only solving it for one entity at a time.

    The secondary problem we have is: How do you solve that for a company plus all its law firms? You need to get the permissioning right internally and externally. There’s a concept in law called ethical walls. Think about a law firm in the valley that works with 20 VCs. If you’re working on a deal for Sequoia, but also working on another deal for Kleiner Perkins, what happens if you accidentally give all the data on the Sequoia deal to Kleiner Perkins? Huge, astronomical problem. We have to solve internal permissioning and external permissioning so agents can work correctly, and if you get it wrong, you’re going to have disastrous impacts on the industry.

    TC: Have you solved this?

    Weinberg: It’s definitely in process. We’re doing all of the security and the permissioning first. The first version of this at scale will probably be done in December. The nice thing is because such a high percentage of our customer base are already corporates using Harvey, the security problem is much easier because they’ve already gone through security review.

    TC: How are lawyers primarily using Harvey today?

    Weinberg: Number one is drafting. Number two is research — that’s emerging because we just have a partnership with LexisNexis. And the third is analyze. What I mean by analyze is running 10 questions over 100,000 documents, like what you do in diligence or discovery.

    In the beginning, we had much more transactional use cases — M&A and fund formation. Those are still very popular, and we’re building modules specifically for those matters. The area that’s growing faster is litigation, and a lot of that is because you needed the data before you could do it.

    TC: Some critics have said Harvey is just a wrapper for ChatGPT. How do you respond?

    Weinberg: The largest advantage we have over time is two things. One, we’re collecting a tremendous amount of workflow data — what are the main use cases these models can actually do? Evaluation becomes a pretty strong moat, because how do you evaluate the quality of a merger agreement? That becomes really hard. You have to set up evaluation frameworks and agentic systems that can self-eval all the different steps.

    The second strongest moat is our product is becoming very strongly multiplayer. This industry has two sides — providers of legal services and consumers. You need to build a platform that’s in between both. So far, I haven’t seen a competitor doing that. We have competitors doing what we do for law firms, and competitors doing what we do for in-house, but I haven’t seen someone build a truly multiplayer platform.

    In terms of the “ChatGPT wrapper” criticism, for 2023 and 2024, a lot of the power behind the product is honestly the model, plus front-end work that makes the UI and UX easier. But if you’re trying to build something where I have 100,000 documents in this data room, 5,000 emails about this M&A, all these different statutes and codes, and I want a system where I can ask questions over all of those pieces combined with high accuracy — that’s the holy grail. We’ve created all the pieces, and what we’ve been building for the past couple months is pulling that together.

    TC: What’s your business model?

    Weinberg: Right now it’s mostly seats, but we’re moving to more outcome-based pricing as the workflows get more complex. You want to do both. You want outcome-based pricing for very small things that you can ensure have the exact same level of accuracy as a human, or better, with very high speed. But the reality is, you’re going to want a lawyer in the loop for so much of work.

    For at least the next year or two, it’s a productivity suite sold seat-based and multiplayer between law firms and their in-house teams. Slowly over time, we’ll build more consumption-based workflows as the systems get better and more accurate than humans in some areas. But it’s not going to be like you automate an entire M&A — it’s going to be specific pieces of diligence where you can have disclosure agents automate the first pass, then have lawyers jump in and do the rest.

    TC: You mentioned to us earlier that penetration is really low in legal. How low?

    Weinberg: What percentage of the lawyers on Earth are using Harvey right now? It’s a super low percentage. There are 8 or 9 million lawyers on Earth. But the more interesting point is we are in the unbelievably early innings on how complex work these systems can do. They’re very helpful and people are getting incredible ROI, but if you think about what percentage of legal work these systems can do today versus what I think it can do in the next five years, it’s so much lower.

    Think about the use case as, what is the value per token. The legal fees for a merger could easily be tens of millions of dollars. The artifact you have after that merger is a merger agreement and an SPA — maybe 200 pages total. What is the value per token on that document that required $20 million or $30 million of legal fees to generate? Those are the types of use cases where, when I say we’re at incredibly low penetration, it’s that we aren’t at the point where you can do something like that. And the value of being able to do that accurately is incredibly high.

    TC: What happens to junior lawyers who are no longer getting the apprenticeship they might have had in the past?

    Weinberg: I care about this potentially more than anything else at the company because I was a junior lawyer very recently. The goal of law firms in the next five to ten years is: how fast can you train the best partners?

    I think right now, that’s partially the goal, but partially the goal is we hire armies of associates and bill them out a lot. Whether it’s because things become outcome-based pricing or because partners can charge more if AI systems can’t do what they do, the most important thing financially for a law firm is to make sure you’re hiring, training and developing lawyers that get to being a partner as fast as humanly possible.

    If you can build tools that can do the first pass of an M&A, that is a one-on-one tutor for a junior associate. We work with a lot of law schools. You can imagine at some point you have an AI merger that you do in Harvey — the system’s teaching you, giving you real-time feedback. That’s an incredible training system. If you can build systems that can actually do a lot of the tasks, there’s no reason you couldn’t turn that into one of the best education platforms possible.

    TC: With your valuation jumping from $3 billion to $8 billion in less than a year, what are your plans for future fundraising?

    Weinberg: Fundraising large rounds is not something we have planned anytime soon. We don’t need that much money, and we aren’t burning a crazy amount. The reason I did a lot of fundraising this year is there are research directions that are going to require a lot of compute, and we wanted to prepare ourselves for that. In terms of public markets, that’s definitely what we’re interested in long term. I can’t give you anything close to a timeline, but we’re interested.

    [ad_2]

    Connie Loizos

    Source link

  • Rivian CEO explains why he made ‘a very intentional effort’ not to copy Tesla’s strategy

    Rivian CEO explains why he made ‘a very intentional effort’ not to copy Tesla’s strategy

    [ad_1]

    Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe spoke about Elon Musk and Tesla on the “Grit” podcast.Phillip Faraone/Chesnot/Getty Images

    • Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe spoke about Elon Musk and Tesla on the “Grit” podcast.

    • Scaringe said Tesla is “inspiring,” but Rivian did not follow Musk’s playbook.

    • He said it’s important that Rivian wasn’t “covering the same ground as Tesla.”

    Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe didn’t want his EV company to become Tesla 2.0.

    Scaringe discussed his and Elon Musk’s automotive companies on Monday during Kleiner Perkins’ “Grit” podcast. Tesla is still a dominant player and has a leg up on Rivian, which Scaringe founded in 2009 at age 26.

    Musk’s tenure as CEO of Tesla began in 2008, the same year customers first received Tesla’s Roadster sports car.

    “Tesla has been absolutely inspiring,” Scaringe said during the podcast. “One of the things that was so important to me with Rivian was to make sure we weren’t covering the same ground as Tesla.”

    When the host pointed out that Rivian initially followed Tesla’s playbook and had plans to create an electric sports car, Scaringe said he made an “intentional” choice to forge their own path.

    “If you think about starting a car company, you want to build a brand that draws in enthusiasts,” he said.

    Scaringe said he’s a fan of sports cars, so the “logical place to start is to build a sports car, use it to build the brand, and follow it with more mass-market vehicles.”

    “That was, of course, how Tesla’s strategy played out, and it worked wonderfully well for them,” he said.

    Scaringe added that his decision to pivot to a different type of EV product, vehicle topology, and experience was “a very intentional effort to also create a new story.”

    “Not only for us as a company or a brand but, importantly, to help shift more mindsets around what sustainable transportation could look like,” he said.

    Representatives for Rivian and Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

    Rivian currently sells the R1S SUV and the R1T pickup truck. Scaringe announced two more vehicles on the way — the R2 SUV and the R3 SUV — in March.

    The EV industry experienced a slowdown in sales and growth this summer. In July, Scaringe told The Verge he thinks the issue is a “truly extreme lack of choice.”

    “If you want to spend less than $50,000 for an EV, I’d say there’s a very, very small number of great products,” he said.

    Read the original article on Business Insider

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mamoon Hamid and Ilya Fushman of Kleiner Perkins: “More than 80%” of pitches now involve AI | TechCrunch

    Mamoon Hamid and Ilya Fushman of Kleiner Perkins: “More than 80%” of pitches now involve AI | TechCrunch

    [ad_1]

    Last week, at a StrictlyVC event in San Francisco, we sat down with Mamoon Hamid and Ilya Fushman, two longtime VCs whose paths first crossed as children in Frankfurt, Germany, and who were brought in to reboot the storied venture firm Kleiner Perkins roughly six years ago.

    They’ve seemingly accomplished their mission to burnish the brand. Among Kleiner’s bets in recent years: Rippling, the workforce management company founded by serial entrepreneur Parker Conrad that was valued at more than $11 billion last year; Loom, a video messaging outfit recently acquired by Atlassian for just under a billion dollars; and Figma, the design tool company that came this close to being acquired by Adobe for $20 billion – and that Fushman and Hamid argue is now happily charting a course as an independent company.

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, team Kleiner is also leaning heavily into AI investments, and it’s these about which we spent the most time talking. You can find video of that chat at page bottom; meanwhile, excerpts from our conversation, edited lightly for length and clarity, follow.

    The last time we sat down together in person was four years ago, at an earlier StrictlyVC event. At the time, SoftBank dominated the conversation. It has since retrenched; what do you think its impact was on the industry?

    IF: We’re coming off of three to four years of just incredible amounts of capital going into venture, and that’s not just SoftBank – that’s a lot of folks who’ve had growth funds, crossover funds. And that flooding of capital has done a few things. One, it created a lot of big companies. Two, some of those companies [became] overfunded and some of them now have to rationalize what happens to them. Our contrarian approach when we were here four years ago was to go back to basics and focus on early stage [startups] primarily, where we said, ‘Hey, we’re just gonna have a venture fund and a very small team.’ We’ve always thought this is much more a boutique business than some of these larger players. 

    Your firm appears bigger than when we last sat down. You now have investors and specialists and advisors from the old guard [at KP], including Bing Gordon and John Doerr.

    MH: I think we might actually be smaller than we last met. I think our total headcount in the firm is in the low 50s. 

    Does ‘everything AI’ change anything? Can you do more with less, or do you actually need more people chasing after all these AI researchers who keep leaving Google to start companies?

    MH: It’s incredible to have this tidal wave of technology innovation. I moved to the Valley in 1987 when we were in the middle of the internet boom, and to be able to live another boom like this twice your lifetime feels like a dream. So I think there’s there’s no better time to be alive than today and to invest in startups because to your point, there is going to be a step-function change in how we all get to live and experience life, as well as how we work because the step-function change will come in the form of productivity that we will all gain through AI, and I think we’re already seeing that in the kinds of businesses that we’re backing – whether it’s like in legal or in healthcare or for software developers. AI is really supercharging the highest paid type of employees that are out there. They get to do more in less time.

    Regarding all these AI engineers spinning out, are VCs actively reaching into these big companies with offers to stake them? Have you done this?

    Image Credits: TechCrunch

    I think that’s definitely happening but the pull factor of AI – the wow factor – has actually pulled folks out of these companies themselves. As these tools become more useful and data becomes more accessible, these opportunities are becoming much more obvious and much more accessible. The big thing for us with this first wave of folks trying to come out and start these companies was trying to understand: are they really the folks who know how to do this? We rely on our founders for [help with these questions]; we look for that pedigree, the folks who know how these things work.

    If you think back to the last 10 years in venture, there are these waves where technical talent becomes  the scarcest resource, and we’re seeing that right now.

    How are your portfolio companies dealing with this challenge in terms of hiring? Meta and Google and OpenAI are offering multimillion-dollar packages for this talent to stick around.

    IF: We have companies that like Harvey are transforming the legal profession. We have companies like Ambience that are transforming healthcare. We have companies like Viz that are doing automated stroke detection and medical diagnostics. The mission definitely resonates with the people who are joining those companies; that’s a huge component. Second, while platform companies are building a lot of phenomenal infrastructure, but when you get into real-world use cases and go into these niches that turn out to be really big over time, you realize that you need to tweak the models and potentially build your own models and potentially your own infrastructure, and that becomes a really interesting technical challenge, which is also incredibly attractive.

    From the outside, it’s hard to understand how these startups build moats — or how strong these moats can be given how quickly everything is changing.

    IF: It depends on the company. Moats and overall market size are the most difficult things to figure out as an investor; they’re typically the things you get wrong the most.

    One thing we’ve learned over our history is that we always undervalue our biggest winners. The companies that do the best always grow faster. They create or expand their market much more than anybody could have anticipated. So we look for some intangibles, one of which is incredible engagement from customers. Like, when the product becomes part of your daily use, that is really hard to tear out.

    The more obvious piece of the moat is the piece of the market that you’re in. A lot of the companies that we’re backing, especially in AI, they’re taking a big problem space that a company can and should own. Enterprise assistant, for example, that’s a big space, and the people who figure that out first are going to be the people who move the fastest. If you look at AI, unless you’ve built an incredible product that’s just flying off the shelves, you don’t get distribution for free the way you did with mobile. AI requires distribution and it requires data to improve the product experience, so the first movers who define a category of a product can, in our view, run much faster than anyone else.

    How many AI-related pitches are you seeing on a weekly or monthly basis?

     

    MH: From a percentage standpoint, I’d say more than 80%. To be fair, if you were building a company in 1996 and you didn’t mention the internet, you’d be out of your mind, right? In the same vein, not mentioning AI or utilizing it would be a missed opportunity.

    And how active are you in this realm, if we can call it that?

    MH: If you looked like last year from Q1 to Q3, it was the slowest year we’d had in 13, 14, 15 years. December, meanwhile, was a really good month.

    That’s around when you led a deal in Together AI, a very buzzy deal. Why are people so fascinated with this company?

    IF: It’s running a platform and set of services for people who want to run their own models. It’s a bit of in some ways an orthogonal bet to sort of the oligopoly [centered on OpenAI, Microsoft and Google] who provide infrastructure, but it’s a company with incredible customers, really strong growth, and a phenomenal nominal team, and the numbers speak for themselves.Again, we’re building vertical experiences — in healthcare, legal, software, engineering, science — and there will be fine tuning and [proprietary] modeling that may be required for some of these use cases, and that opportunity is actually quite exciting because of that.

    I understand you have also invested in a wearable started by somebody who would make VCs salivate. Tell us more!

    MH: I’m not sure I can tell you more today. I don’t think they would like that. Next time.

    Based on what you are seeing, do you think one AI wearable will win? Just as we carry around one phone, will we use one wearable device?

    I think we all ask ourselves the question of what is the computing platform beyond the mobile phone. Some people put on Oura rings, some put on Fitbits. I’m wearing a Whoop. These are pretty, basic wearables. They’re not all that smart.

    What’s capturing the imagination of all of us is what is the next computing wearable that we’re all going to adopt that doesn’t look like a cell phone. There’s the Rabbit, there’s the Humane AI pin and soon you’ll see the Vision Pro vision. There’s exciting stuff happening. But as you know, it’s very difficult to get consumers to adopt a new form factor and a new way of doing things. It takes some incredible design and a low cost product and beautiful interfaces, and I think we’re excited to see all these things.

    Figma, whose Series B round you led in 2018, just halved its valuation, from the $20 billion Adobe was planning to pay for it, to $10 billion. Where does it go from here?

    MH: Figma is one of those once-in-a-decade kind of companies, both from the team, the product they built, the love from its community, the revenue profile, the profitability. It’s is the venture capitalists’ dream. So it’s not sad that it is charting its own independent course. It was quite bittersweet to agree to sell the company for everyone around the table in September of 2022. So I think we’re very energized about the future and the company continues to perform incredibly well.

     

    [ad_2]

    Connie Loizos

    Source link