Core Viewpoint - The technology industry is experiencing an exponential increase in productivity driven by AI, but there is a critical need to assess the actual value of the outputs generated, distinguishing between outputs and meaningful outcomes [1][2][4]. Group 1: Outputs vs. Outcomes - There is a confusion between "outputs" (the quantity of work done) and "outcomes" (the value derived from that work), leading teams to focus on delivery speed rather than user satisfaction and business success [2][3][10]. - High page views are often cited as vanity metrics, while the real question is whether users are taking meaningful actions [3][22]. - A case study from Power Reviews illustrates that focusing on fixing mobile experiences led to a 50% increase in user reviews, emphasizing that doing the right things is more important than doing many things [3][20]. Group 2: Importance of Metrics - The article stresses the need to focus on "outcomes" rather than just "outputs," advocating for a shift in mindset from timely delivery to actual impact [10][12]. - Various types of metrics are discussed, including usage metrics, milestone metrics, satisfaction metrics, and financial metrics, each serving different purposes in measuring success [30][63]. - Success metrics should focus on user engagement and conversion rates, rather than superficial indicators like social media likes or page views [29][28]. Group 3: Identifying Vanity Metrics - Vanity metrics can create a false sense of success, as they often focus on quantity rather than quality, such as high traffic without meaningful user engagement [22][24]. - Companies should ensure that their marketing efforts translate into actual conversions and revenue, rather than just attracting attention [27][28]. Group 4: Case Study and Practical Application - A case study on a podcast creation app illustrates how to track success metrics, including user engagement and activation rates, to ensure the app meets user needs and drives business value [72][87]. - The importance of aligning product team efforts with company goals is highlighted, ensuring that metrics reflect both user satisfaction and business outcomes [88][90].

在这个对话中，Eric Vishria 分享了他如何看待 AI 时代的创业、什么样的创始人是他们最喜欢以及 Benchmark 的投资策略和内部如何决策等话题。 结合我之前关于 Benchmark 的一些文章效果可能更好《 2 个月估值增 4 倍，Benchmark 把最近增长 最快的 AI 应用都投了 》、《 Benchmark 5 亿美金估值投资 Manus 的背后，以及其投资策略 》。 他提到的几点让我印象非常深刻，比方说 AI 时代的增长完全超出了传统的常态模式，它是一种指数级 增长，颠覆了 SaaS 企业的 3-3-3-2-2 增长法则。 对于创始人，他更关注 创始人的叙事能力、智识真诚以及持续学习能力 。创始人构建企业叙事的能力 至关重要。"在所有场景中，最擅长持续优化叙事的人最终胜出"。同时，成功创始人的核心特质是学习 能力，"相比初始经验，我更关注创始人的学习斜率与第一性原理思考能力"。 最优秀的创始人往往兼具两种特质：极度乐观与极度多疑——他们对自身使命和业务前景充满信念，但 对其他一切保持警惕。 他认为，互联网是"分销机制"的革命，而 AI 是底层技术的颠覆，更接近"晶体管"式的赋能逻辑。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is proposing that Google divest two of its advertising products to restore competition in the ad tech sector following a court ruling that found Google guilty of maintaining monopoly power in the digital advertising space [1][2]. Group 1: DOJ Proposals - The DOJ's filing suggests that Google should sell its ad exchange product AdX and conduct a phased sale of DoubleClick for Publishers, an ad server for website publishers [2]. - The DOJ also proposes that Google refrain from operating an ad exchange for 10 years after the sale of AdX [2]. - The filing emphasizes the need for Google to open its ad buying tools, including AdWords, to work with all third-party ad tech products on non-discriminatory terms [4]. Group 2: Allegations Against Google - The DOJ alleges that Google has ensured significant revenue losses for publishers that do not use AdX, thereby creating a monopoly by integrating AdX and DFP [3]. - The filing describes the proposed remedies as necessary to terminate Google's monopolies and reintroduce competition into the ad exchange and publisher ad server markets [4]. Group 3: Google's Response - In response to the DOJ's proposals, Google's VP of regulatory affairs stated that the measures would harm publishers and advertisers, arguing that the DOJ's additional proposals exceed the court's findings [5]. - Google has proposed its own remedies, including making AdX real-time bids available to all third-party ad servers and having its actions monitored by an independent compliance observer for three years [8]. Group 4: Broader Antitrust Context - Google is facing antitrust pressure from multiple fronts, including a separate case where the U.S. government is seeking to compel the company to sell its Chrome browser due to findings of monopoly power in the online search market [8].