Sep 1, 2017 · 23m · 20vc
20VC: What Is The Big Lie To Silicon Valley, Why Silicon Valley Is No Longer Optimised For Deep Tech Investing & Why AI Will Lead To More Business Model Innovation Than Technology Innovation with Tim Harris, Founder & CEO @ Swift Navigation
0:00 / 0:00
gold bands on the timeline = statements, start to end. Hover to read, click to jump. CC turns on captions
In this episode of The 20 Minute VC, host Harry Stebbings interviews Tim Harris, CEO of Swift Navigation, to explore the challenges of funding and scaling deep tech startups in Silicon Valley. Harris shares key insights on venture capital dynamics, unit economics, hardware strategy, and the future of high-precision autonomous positioning.
How this conversation actually went
Every chapter scored 0–10 on four independent dynamics. Hover any point for the reasoning behind the score. Harry holds 37.6% of the talking time here. How this is scored →
Harry as informed peer 3.2 Guest teaching 3.8 Guest disagreement 1.8 Harry pushing back 2.8
speaking balance: gold is Harry, purple is the guest (3 minute bins)
Sharpest disagreement ▶ 8:41 Calling out Silicon Valley's 'big lie'
Tim directly critiques prevailing tech consensus, arguing that startups pretend unit economics are fixed while breaking their underlying math entirely to chase growth.
Hardest push from Harry ▶ 4:10 Challenging guest's view on VC deep tech avoidanceHarry pushes back on Tim's assertion that Silicon Valley neglects deep tech by putting forward a clear thesis on fund lifecycles and LP liquidity requirements.
Biggest teaching moment ▶ 11:01 Explaining deep tech bill-of-materials assumptionsTim educates the host on how deep tech startups manipulate unit economics projections via future bill-of-materials cost assumptions that rarely survive shifting competitive landscapes.
Harry holds his own ▶ 14:22 Demonstrating seed valuation and dilution mathHarry demonstrates deep venture mechanics knowledge by breaking down early-stage seed dilution, pre-money valuations, and frothy round sizes.
the scores for every segment, with the reasoning behind each
| Chapter | Topic | Harry as informed peer | Guest teaching | Guest disagreement | Harry pushing back | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Founding Swift Navigation and Tim Harris' Background | 3 | 4 | 1 | 4 | Harry introduces a counter-thesis regarding venture capital fund lifecycles and LP liquidity returns to challenge Tim's stance on Silicon Valley's deep tech limitations. Tim agrees with Harry's explanation of VC incentives while elaborating on the historical shift from semiconductor deep tech to modern business model innovations like Uber. | |
| Deep Tech Hype vs. Investor Technical Competency | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | Harry cites Elad Gil's comparison of current deep tech hype to the 2001 cleantech bubble. Tim pushes back on the premise by agreeing in part but distinguishing technical innovation from manufacturing and operational expertise in fields like LIDAR. | |
| Pitching Complex Deep Technology to Venture Capitalists | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | Tim exposes what he calls Silicon Valley's 'big lie' regarding unit economics and breaking business models for growth. Harry challenges whether this behavior is simply required to satisfy growth-hungry VCs, leading to a hypothetical roleplay where Harry probes Tim on testing deep tech bill-of-materials assumptions. | |
| Capital Requirements, R&D Runways, and Valuations in Deep Tech | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | Harry asks if deep tech investing is primarily an M&A lottery play for VCs and demonstrates knowledge of seed valuation froth. Tim uses engineering adages to explain why deep tech R&D requires extended runways and defense against low-barrier competition. | |
| Swift's Technical Strategy and Corporate Partnership Models | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | Harry asks how Swift can compete with tech giants like Google or incumbent automakers like Audi and BMW. Tim dismisses typical 'Silicon Valley arrogance' about talent superiority, detailing why partnership models and corporate incentive alignment are essential. | |
| Quickfire Round and Swift Navigation's Five-Year Vision | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | A quickfire round covering leadership reading, personal humility, patience in hardware startup development, and five-year company milestones. |
Statements from this episode (13)
Swift Navigation spun out of airborne wind turbine startup acquired by Google
“That company ultimately merged with another company in the space, sold to Google, and we spun out the technology ahead of the Google acquisition.”
Tim Harris: Uber is a business model innovation, not a tech company
“So the venture capitalists have been investing in mostly business model innovations as a distinction from technology innovations, and those are things like, when you think about it, Uber isn't really a tech company, right? They build a, an app, so they use tec…”
Tim Harris: AI will drive more business model innovation than tech innovation
“AI is actually going to drive more business model innovation than it is actually technology innovation.”
Harris: Many LIDAR investors lack necessary technical competency
“There are so many LIDAR companies, and there's, more importantly, there's so many investors who don't really have the competency to understand which LIDAR innovations are meaningful, and really what it even takes to make a LIDAR company successful, right?”
Swift Navigation CEO Tim Harris has no technical background
“I'm not, I don't even have a technical background myself, but I can stand up there and I can explain GPS and the subtleties of high precision.”
Harris: Silicon Valley startups break unit economics to chase rapid growth
“The big lie is fundamentally around unit economics. What I see out there in the market is people, they go out and they prove product market fit, right? They have a product or they have some business model innovation and it's going to work. The next question is…”
Harris: VCs care more about company size than profitability
“At the end of the day, I think everyone's just going to keep accepting this big lie, because as long as markets still appreciate size over return, they're going to continue to support these types of companies. And if you look at it, proof is in the pudding. Th…”
Harris: Deep tech cost curves should tie to Moore's Law
“For deep technology, you need to understand what aspects of the bomb they're looking to come down, right? I think a lot of it tends to be external and dependent on startups. I see this a lot. Oh, there's a lot of companies innovating around X, Y, or Z, and tho…”
Harris: Deep tech startups must build discrete saleable products during R&D
“If you can build a business that is sustainable from a revenue standpoint, and then grows from a revenue standpoint in deep tech the same way that you would in any other business, you can still build that deep technology, but you have to fill it, figure it out…”
Harris: Deep tech attracts capital because business model innovations lack defensibility
“Now, that said, the deep tech companies, the reason why you see lots of investment in them is because the business model innovation companies themselves are not Not particularly only a few of them work as well. They're not particularly defensible, a lot of the…”
Harris: Startups beat incumbents by picking new directions and out-accelerating them
“In reality, you can only really win by picking a new direction, and then accelerating towards it faster than anyone else. So everyone else is running in another direction at a very high speed, and what you want to do is pick a new point on the horizon and Acce…”
Harris: Deep tech startups must partner rather than attempt full disruption
“I think, yes, I think a partnership model is actually more appropriate, because you can't win at everything now. It used to be, the rules have changed, things are harder, so you want to figure out what is the thing that you can do better, and just that thing, …”
Harris: Corporate partnerships fail unless tied to the core business
“What you need out of a partner is some value that you can offer them on their main product line, is what I personally believe, because a lot of them have these innovation departments, and they want to explore lots of other things, but politically, they just ca…”