I'm one of the founders of Readness. Europe gets a lot of flak for it's venture capital world. Yes, seed funding is (too) scarce - but Readness didn't fail because we couldn't raise (and it isn't fair to blame the seed investors for us failing - everyone has been amazingly friendly and I've made many good friends "on the other side"), we were not at the point of being able to raise a meaningful round. We ran out of capital (after 2.5 years of building multiple products) before we built a compelling product in the space. Considering we raised less than £50,000 I think we had a good run.
I think it's kind of lame to disseminate why stuff failed in hindsight publically, but I'm proud that we failed with Readness so fast - it'd be easy to be so determined we continued iterating for many more years without having a fresh start to be radically new.
Sorry, but his article is really one-sided. It just blames the lack of funding for the failure and disregards other factors and challenges of a startup.
As I understood Readness was somehow funded (4iP) but the funding was then cut off for some reason. They tried to get into YC but failed and then decided to kill the service/startup.
What I read from the article is that the founders weren't trying hard enough.
What about other sources for funding? Sure, YC is nice, but it isn't the only place in the world to get funding.
To how many other investors have the founders reached out? What about the numbers (users, pageviews)?
What were they going to make money from?
> "When we returned from San Francisco, we realised that the funding and resources required to iterate Readness into something that could attract hyper-growth, were far higher than we had available."
This reads like: "We weren't abele to get the funding that easy and decided to kill the service after a half year of operation."
How about slow and steady growth in contrast to hyper-growth? More PR? (I would have been a potential user, if I knew it existed).
Most startups take definitely more then 6 months to build a solid user base, features and to get funded. It's very hard work.
As long as you are somehow growing and improving the service, you're good. Don't count (on) money, build a business/service and work hard. If you need money to cover your costs of living: bootstrap, do consulting, take another job.
What I basically want to say is that while funding might an essential aspect of your startup, it's not the only one and the solution to everything. So, don't blame it always on funding!
I was interested when I heard about it on HN, and went to sign up immediately...and then immediately didn't bother with it when I learned it required Facebook and Chrome. Facebook as a log in is a complete dealbreaker for me, and I've heard others express this sentiment too.
I'm not so sure it was that great of an idea. Do I really want everyone to know that I secretly checked out the video of Miley Cyrus taking a bong hit? Or that I visit the Fark 5x a day?
Not everything that can be shared should be shared, people. :-)
Wow, why I haven't heard of this?
First delicious now this?
I was just waiting for voyurl because of the potential, then bam there was already one and it is now closing...
[+] [-] pclark|15 years ago|reply
I think it's kind of lame to disseminate why stuff failed in hindsight publically, but I'm proud that we failed with Readness so fast - it'd be easy to be so determined we continued iterating for many more years without having a fresh start to be radically new.
(I have a new startup in the works, don't worry)
[+] [-] frb|15 years ago|reply
As I understood Readness was somehow funded (4iP) but the funding was then cut off for some reason. They tried to get into YC but failed and then decided to kill the service/startup.
What I read from the article is that the founders weren't trying hard enough. What about other sources for funding? Sure, YC is nice, but it isn't the only place in the world to get funding. To how many other investors have the founders reached out? What about the numbers (users, pageviews)? What were they going to make money from?
> "When we returned from San Francisco, we realised that the funding and resources required to iterate Readness into something that could attract hyper-growth, were far higher than we had available."
This reads like: "We weren't abele to get the funding that easy and decided to kill the service after a half year of operation."
How about slow and steady growth in contrast to hyper-growth? More PR? (I would have been a potential user, if I knew it existed). Most startups take definitely more then 6 months to build a solid user base, features and to get funded. It's very hard work.
As long as you are somehow growing and improving the service, you're good. Don't count (on) money, build a business/service and work hard. If you need money to cover your costs of living: bootstrap, do consulting, take another job.
What I basically want to say is that while funding might an essential aspect of your startup, it's not the only one and the solution to everything. So, don't blame it always on funding!
[+] [-] pclark|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jokermatt999|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajays|15 years ago|reply
Not everything that can be shared should be shared, people. :-)
[+] [-] daralthus|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raccoonone|15 years ago|reply
How many of you would use a service like that?
[+] [-] atomical|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smoody|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stuaxo|15 years ago|reply
Lastfm for tv would be the best thing since er... lastfm.
[+] [-] nowarninglabel|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] henry81|15 years ago|reply