Skip to main content

The Rise of Google, Part 6: Kleiner + Sequoia

Kleiner + Sequoia

🎬 Prefer to watch? Here's the 60-second version:

Watch on YouTube ▶

📚 The Rise of Google — a 20-part series. See all parts »  |  « Part 5: Don't Be Evil

By the spring of 1999, Google had a problem that most startups would kill for: it was too good to stay small. Larry Page and Sergey Brin were still running the company out of rented space, serving a growing crowd of users who kept telling their friends. The search was better. Everyone could feel it. But better search meant more machines, more bandwidth, more engineers — and the founders’ pockets, plus a scrappy first round of angel money, were running dry. It was time to raise real capital.

What happened next became one of Silicon Valley’s most quietly audacious financing stories: two of the most powerful venture firms in the world, firms that almost never sit at the same table, were talked into funding the same tiny startup at the same time.

Two crowns, one company

In late-1990s Silicon Valley, two names sat above all others on Sand Hill Road. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, led by the relentless John Doerr, had backed Netscape, Amazon, and a string of internet winners. Sequoia Capital, founded by Don Valentine in 1972 and by then powered by the sharp former journalist Michael Moritz, had money in Apple, Cisco, and Yahoo. Landing a check from either one was a coronation. Landing both was almost unheard of — the two firms were fierce rivals who typically fought over deals rather than shared them.

Page and Brin, characteristically, decided they wanted exactly that. Getting both meant Google would have the two best-connected investors in the valley pulling in the same direction, with neither able to dominate the young company. It also meant the founders could hold onto more control than a single dominant investor might allow. The catch was convincing two proud competitors to split a deal each would rather own outright.

The stare-down

The negotiation was, by every account, a test of nerve. The founders made clear they wanted Doerr and Moritz both, and they were willing to walk rather than settle for one. For seasoned investors accustomed to setting the terms, being played against a rival by a pair of Stanford graduate students was a novel and slightly irritating experience. But the product spoke for itself, and neither Doerr nor Moritz wanted to be the one who passed on the search engine everyone in the know was already quietly using.

So they blinked — together. On June 7, 1999, Google announced a $25 million round of equity funding. Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia split it down the middle, roughly $12.5 million apiece. John Doerr and Michael Moritz both joined Google’s board of directors. Two rival kingmakers, one boardroom, one very small company that was about to get much bigger.

Betting on ambition, not a business model

Here is the detail that still surprises people: Google, in June 1999, had no meaningful revenue. It had brilliant technology, explosive usage, and roughly forty employees — but no clear answer to the question every investor eventually asks: how will you make money? The AdWords auction machine that would later mint billions did not yet exist. The pitch Doerr and Moritz were buying was closer to a conviction than a plan: that search was the front door to the entire web, and whoever owned the best door would own something enormous.

Doerr, as the story is often told, pressed the founders on just how big they thought Google could become, expecting the usual hopeful figure. The answer he got — a market value in the billions — struck him as either delusional or the whole point. He wrote the check anyway. That is the essence of great venture investing: paying for the size of the ambition when the spreadsheet can’t yet justify it.

The $25 million did exactly what it was supposed to. It bought servers, bandwidth, and headcount, and it bought Google the runway to keep improving the product without having to compromise it for a quick buck. Just as importantly, it bought credibility. When Kleiner and Sequoia both put their names on a startup, the rest of the valley took notice.

But money and prestige don’t answer the revenue question forever. A board full of legendary investors would soon start asking, politely at first, how a search engine with no ads planned to become a business — and the pressure to grow up was about to arrive at Google’s door.

Next in the series: the search for adult supervision — how Google went hunting for a CEO who could turn a beloved product into a real company.


🔗 Explore more from Syncster

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cursor AI Review: Is the AI Code Editor Worth It?

I've been using Cursor as my main code editor for a while now, and enough people have asked whether it's worth switching to that a proper review felt overdue. Short version: for me, yes — but with caveats. What is Cursor? Cursor is an AI-first code editor built as a fork of VS Code. That means every extension, theme, and keybinding you already use in VS Code works here, but with AI woven directly into the editing experience instead of bolted on as a plugin. It's made by Anysphere and can run models from OpenAI and Anthropic under the hood. What I like Tab completion is uncanny. Cursor predicts your next edit — not just the rest of the line, but the next change across the file. Once you get used to hitting Tab, going back to a plain editor feels slow. The Composer / Agent mode. You describe a change in plain language and it edits multiple files at once, showing you a diff to accept or reject. For refactors and boilerplate, this saves real time. It unde...

MacBook Pro M5 vs M5 Pro: Which One Should You Actually Buy?

Apple's latest 14-inch MacBook Pro comes in two very different flavors: the base M5 and the step-up M5 Pro . On paper they look similar — same gorgeous Liquid Retina XDR display, same design — but under the hood the gap is bigger than the names suggest. Here's a clear, no-hype breakdown, with concrete use cases so you can match the chip to your work. Quick spec comparison Spec M5 M5 Pro CPU 10-core (4 performance + 6 efficiency) Up to 18-core (6 performance + 12 efficiency) GPU 10-core Up to 20-core Neural Engine 16-core 16-core Memory bandwidth 153 GB/s 307 GB/s (roughly double) Unified memory 16 / 24 / 32 GB 24 / 48 / 64 GB Max storage Up to 4 TB SSD Up to 8 TB SSD Battery (video playback) Up to 24 hours Up to 22 hours Media engines Single encode/ProRes engine More encode/ProRes engines (higher configs) What actually changes between them More cores — the M5 Pro nearly doubles CPU cores and adds GPU cores, so sustained, multi-threaded work finishe...

How I used Google Sheets and Apps Script

Google Sheet is one of the most powerful spreadsheet application that exists online, rivaling with Microsoft's Excel. One of the main strengths is its strong support for collaboration with other users, much easier and popular than collaboration tools with Microsoft Office. Aside from plain spreadsheet, it also supports extensions such as macro. If you are familiar with macros on other office tools, they work almost the same. However, the most extension I use and tinker with is the Apps Scipt . Apps Script Extension One of the challenges I faced recently is how do I track or monitor reports in our department if they are submitted on time or worst, forgotten due to lack of better monitoring tools. So I thought if there can be simple applications that can be deployed or use by a more general user to allow reminding periodically what reports are approaching due dates or those that are past dues. Then I looked for a way, instead of creating a full blown app from scratc...