Another of my favorite philosophies from Steve:
“We interact with the world by using other people’s mathematics, language, etc. We are constantly taking from the pool of creation, but the most estatic thing one could do is to actually put something back into that pool.”

You’ve made some Interesting points (as usual!!).
Maybe if the metrics are re-defined a bit, the article above makes even better sense. We encourage our investee companies to talk about potential profitability (and cash-flows) rather than revenues. This focuses their attention on what is important rather than on ego-boosts such as Topline figures.
With this metric, even a company operating in a smaller segment can perhaps be as profitable as a company operating in a large segment — of course not in absolute figures, but in terms of Return on Investment, RoCE etc.
Of course, like all good things in life, the above is not as simple as it sounds — e.g. I suppose the trick would be to identify an under-served niche with some early-entrant benefits (or conversely entry barriers for future competition so that later wannabe-entrants who salivate at the profitability of the segment do not find entry easy).

Looking forward to your future posts.
Best Regards,
Rahul Dev Gupta

One of the practical challenges I find (in addition to the constant balancing between the two brains) is that our short-term pre-existing schedules may be relatively fixed (I find VC schedules to generally be booked out 2-4 weeks). Creating the time to do really strong diligence may some schedule shuffling (which could take away from the ‘sourcing brain’) and lead to many a late night/weekend in order to not lose time on closing a deal.