71–80 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fascinating. Source?
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/full_... and Wikipedia. I went through most of the list. It's right to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dropbox is AFAIK a one founder company. Go figure.
"It was founded in 2007 by MIT graduates Drew Houston and Arash Ferdowsi as a Y Combinator startup" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropbox_%28service%29
> I got an email from Paul Graham saying basically that being a single founder put me at a disadvantage, because two founders can talk each other out of bad ideas, but I appeared too stubborn. I’m not entirely sure what this means, as I was under the impression, from reading his essays, that Paul was against single founders because they might give up too easily, so a founder who sticks to his idea would be desirable.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two parts that seem incorrect: 1) YC has one company with very high potential of a billion dollar exit in Dropbox. An IPO in a few years isn't out of the question either. They also have at least a half dozen that are likely to be as big or bigger than Viaweb: 2) Google took seed funding early and then raised VC. That is the model YC uses.
Dropbox is AFAIK a one founder company. Go figure.
Have you considered applying to The Openfund ( http://theopenfund.com/ ) or HackFWD ( http://hackfwd.com/ )?
> I got an email from Paul Graham saying basically that being a single founder put me at a disadvantage, because two founders can talk each other out of bad ideas, but I appeared too stubborn. I’m not entirely sure what this means, as I was under the impression, from reading his essays, that Paul was against single founders because they might give up too easily, so a founder who sticks to his idea would be desirable.…
Also: > I was under the impression, from reading his essays, that Paul was against single founders because they might give up too easily, so a founder who sticks to his idea would be desirable. My understanding of Paul's argument has been that most initial ideas are bad and that a successful startup requires changing course until your idea matches a marketable need. This suggests an important distinction between stub…
I would see this as a win for you :) Being invited is a strong sign that you/your idea have merit. But instead of having to deal with funding/investors/other crap, you get to work on your idea, in a "remote area of Greece", be your own boss and grow the company how you want. I can very easily see this idea being modestly successful and giving you a lot of freedom to work on other ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/full_... and Wikipedia. I went through most of the list. It's right to me.
If you look at the wikipedia page for Sam Walton, the founding looks a little more nuanced: "Walton went on to open more Ben Franklin Stores with the help of his brother, father-in-law, and brother-in-law." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton
I have to ask what benefits your idea offers over something like diigo.com or even delicious.com. You present the idea slightly differently from diigo, but in the end diigo does exactly the same things, and then some (a lot more actually). I don't mean to discourage you at all, I'm just wondering what I may be missing here.
However, different people will need different things. I just think there's a market there for both approaches.
Please continue your startup. I use it constantly.