31–40 of 64 posts
"Along the way, we learned an enormous amount about building a startup, pitching potential investors, and things such as cap tables, term sheets, Series A rounds, company valuation. It felt like a real-world MBA crash course." You learned everything about building a startup except building a profitable, sustainable business. Everything else is secondary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And rightly so.
No. It may have been smart to let this idea go, but "Google entered the space" is not generally a good reason to give up. For niche products, small companies are often in a surprisingly good position to compete with Google (or pretty much any giant company). Advantages small companies have: * Much easier to change feature/function/benefit and packaging to adapt to the market * Not competing with revenue from 1000 oth…
If I want to learn how to program, there are a TONS and I mean TONS of free resources everywhere on the internet - very similar to all of the game faqs people keep referencing. And yet, Lydia still makes a ton of money because their service is sold as a subscription based service which is much better than other resources on the internet.
If you do a good job of marketing this and sell it as a premium service, I'm sure they would've done just fine. Also, if they do make a dent in Google's service, you can bet their ass, they'd be calling about acquiring them in short order, which would have made a nice payday for them
Instead, they bailed at the first opportunity. To me, it doesn't sound like their hearts were really in it.
Selling below cost price is considered anti-competitive, and is illegal in many countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your complaint is extremely subjective and evidently false for tons of people Possibly, but please consider this: Game guides and gamefaqs.com contain reference works wherein one can go and look up details when one is stuck. One doesn't usually read the whole thing to learn how to play the game in the most efficient way (unless it's competitive or has complexity on the level of a programming language, like Minecraf…
> One doesn't usually read the whole thing to learn how to play the game in the most efficient way (unless it's competitive or has complexity on the level of a programming language, like Minecraft). I'm not sure about game guides, but: 1) Walkthroughs are absolutely not the only type of guide that GameFAQs houses. It has never been only walkthroughs, even from its very early beginnings. The easiest example of this is…
Those are competitive, which i addressed in my post. Note that the original article specifically mentions the Elder Scrolls series as an example.
> GameFAQs has had a forum for ages
In forums you go in and ask your question. Again, it functions like a reference work.
> You're being facetious.
That is a highly uncalled for accusation, and i am serious. (Though it may not have been entirely clear that i was excluding the two categories mentioned in the paragraph before that question.)
> https://www.youtube.com/user/OneHiveRaids
Again, that is about a competitive game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And rightly so.
No. It may have been smart to let this idea go, but "Google entered the space" is not generally a good reason to give up. For niche products, small companies are often in a surprisingly good position to compete with Google (or pretty much any giant company). Advantages small companies have: * Much easier to change feature/function/benefit and packaging to adapt to the market * Not competing with revenue from 1000 oth…
Their description of the business model is to be gamefaqs.com, only with videos instead of text. As an avid gamer, that sounds: - very niche, their intended content would only be a small fraction of what yt gaming will offer (it focuses on live streams) - very unattractive, since learning how to play the game by exploring it is the fun of it - very unmonetizable, given that people can get the very same content, for f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite: "Our forecasts had us profitable as of summer, 2016, and closing our second year with nearly $1.2-million in revenue." Those were forecasts, not actual revenue.
You're right, it does sound like they mean it's a forecast. But predicting that kind of revenue (and so specific) when you don't have any revenue at all sounds a bit odd. What's it based on, if not an actual curve of growing revenue?
It seems common knowledge enough that budget and revenue forecasts for seed stage start ups aren't going to be precise or very accurate. For investors, that part of a pitch would be meaningless.
"We forecast 1.2 in revenue by our 2nd year."
"How much revenue do you have today?"
If they had prior success, they could raise a round on that, otherwise it would be the standard pitch: size of opportunity, here is what we have so far, here is our team and how great they are.