segabach's comments

Indeed, the lens is what I'm talking about. I'd go so far as to argue that you should never approach a new project as a potential company and instead just build things you find fun/useful/novel. The greatest successes (financially, world impact) I've seen have been from developers making cool projects. These eventually got traction and the developer had investors... beating down the door. At that point the project turned into a company (although not one that had revenue). Growth continued because the products were awesome and eventually led to massive acquisitions.

You could argue that they hit their MVP and that's when everything took off but the mindset was definitely "I'm going to build something cool" opposed to "I'm going to build an MVP so I can have a startup".

These founders eventually left post-acquisition and have since continued to crank out new projects without regard to commercial viability. Not what the business schools teach but they have "won" so I don't think they care.

This probably won't be a popular opinion here, but anyone using the term "MVP" has always set off red flags of failure for me. The best products come from people who are in love with technology scratching their own itch.

People wanting to "do a startup" are most likely in for a world of hurt. If you're not writing code on a daily basis (because that's what you do!) and eventually writing code to solve a problem you're having, or just cause you have a cool idea, then the likelihood of success is basically nil.

Cool, now they can bypass the painful step of forcing you out of the CEO role, and just never let you take it in the first place. Also, Fred would not invest in this app and Jordan isn't a real VC, so the piece is pretty bogus.

The scrum teams don't own the means of production. Individual contributors are human capital. The means of production are owned by the people in control of the finances and business model. If the company were to shift direction and your product discontinued, it's possible the scrum team would be disbanded and the resources that were being used to support them would be reallocated by the "owners" to a new team that aligned with their decision to shift strategy.

The one thing they totally failed to predict was the trend toward much more casual clothing. Partially due to technology becoming available to all the classes but even upper class people would find this level of dress over the top for current times. How long before we end up in the stereotypical white space jump suit?

I wonder how a16z would feel about an upstart portfolio company turning down world class talent in the name of friendship? Obviously, don't hire someone if it will sour a relationship that is financially important for your company, but are you really a great entrepreneur/ceo if you're turning away awesome people for some fuzzy feelings you have with another ceo?

DON'T: Choose a partner that has a spouse/significant other who won't be supporting the business through the inevitable down times that come with launching a business.

Actually it doesn't have to be the opposite. It just has to be something repurposed into a context not intended by the original meaning.

Great points. VCs (and larger angels) will tell you all day long that there's no such thing as pitching too early (cf. http://www.thisisgoingtobebig.com/blog/2009/10/19/never-too-...). It's simply not true. As Rand mentions the power dynamics in those talks are entirely one-sided (not your side).

This isn't black and white and investors are great at playing the game. Often they'll send an associate your way in the early stages (or send you back down to an associate after a MD intro). If this happens, insist on talking to the MD. If they agree, they're interested and possibly trying to mask that interest. If they don't, they're not interested and just trying to "hang around the rim".

Unless you love pitching, don't spend time with investors that don't have partners chasing YOU.