By success, I mean "make money for the investors". That seems like a reasonable criteria for judging the success of an investment.
I don't think I see where you're coming from, actually. Do you object to YC investing in 9gag because:
It won't be a successful investment, aka make money for its investors
OR: It might be a successful investment, but if so it's only because they bamboozled someone. It won't ever make much money, though someone might acquire it (or it might IPO).
OR: It will be a successful investment, but it's trash as a product.
OR: It will be a successful investment, and it's OK as a product for some people, but it's not innovative enough
OR: something else? You mention a lot of things, but what's the core reason you object?
If we are measuring success solely on making money for investors (which I guess makes sense in this context)... then the closest option would be: It will be a successful investment, but it's trash as a product.
Or more closely: It might be a successful investment, but I think it's trash as a product and it's not innovative. I am not convinced it will make money legitimately. I'm not saying anyone will get bamboozled, but I could see a momentum-fueled, top-arc sale that makes someone some money at the expense of someone else being left holding yesterdays news.
Also, the part about "you see where I'm coming from" was strictly relating to Facebook being a massively successful product, yet horrible for stock holders... considering the stock is basically in the toilet. In the "make money for investors" category, Facebook is hardly a success.
1) I disagree with your assessment of 9gag. It's similar to previous social news sites, but different in a couple key ways.[1] Reddit was originally called a "del.icio.us clone" but now we call things reddit clones. There's some ick-factor from the way that content is copied from reddit and elsewhere, but that really goes both ways.
2) It's pretty clear how 9gag makes money: paid placements. Unlike reddit it doesn't appear to have a strong anti-commercial taboo. If it can grow big enough, it will make money. Remember: Facebook is already quite profitable (by the billions!) just not profitable enough to justify at $100 billion valuation yet. So this objection makes no sense to me.
3) Facebook was a HUGE success from the point of view of pretty much every investor except people who bought for the "pop" right after the IPO. Every VC investor in Facebook did great. Maybe they IPO'd above their true value, but it's still a $40 billion company. That's larger than 99.99% of all companies that get started. So I really don't get where you're coming from here at all.
[1] Specifically, it is image-only, presents the images inline, and uses Facebook likes and comments instead of native ones.
I don't think I see where you're coming from, actually. Do you object to YC investing in 9gag because:
It won't be a successful investment, aka make money for its investors
OR: It might be a successful investment, but if so it's only because they bamboozled someone. It won't ever make much money, though someone might acquire it (or it might IPO).
OR: It will be a successful investment, but it's trash as a product.
OR: It will be a successful investment, and it's OK as a product for some people, but it's not innovative enough
OR: something else? You mention a lot of things, but what's the core reason you object?