Everpix was great. This is how it died • Hacker News Board

Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died

#231

Post by girvo » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 3:50 AM UTC

dmourati wrote: post #138

autarch wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be fairly easy to price out, right? I suggest you start by simply comparing the cost of dedicated hosting-provided hardware. This is the middle ground between owning your own stuff and something like AWS. Pricing out the cost of owning your own servers can be tricky since you need to account for a number of factors: * Initial cost of hardware - don't forget to include things like network switches, remote…

I did this math at Eye-Fi, a competitor of sorts to Everpix. What I learned, is the answer to whether to build or buy is the classic: "it depends". The driving factor? Data retention policy. The one move Amazon made during my analysis that had a huge shift in the calculus was to introduce Glacier. My takeaway, the economics of a lifetime storage offering are very difficult to achieve. Glacier changes the rules by alt…

Eye-Fi is awesome. <3

Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died

#232

Post by AndrewKemendo » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 3:50 AM UTC

marincounty wrote: post #71

sameer_sundresh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our per-user income was above our per-user costs. But we hadn't yet reached the economies of scale where fixed costs were covered.

I always ask on question to every business, and nonprofit. How much were, are the founders of the company making per year? It's usually a lie. I've also noticed when young entrepreneurs are given a large amount of money; they don't quite realize that it's probally all the big money they will ever see. I know I didn't. I made a lot of money in my twenties, thinking it would always be this easy. Sometimes, the availabi…

It is staggering to me some of the salaries that founders give themselves. I remember reading a tip for pitchdecks/term sheets that if you put your founder salary as anything above 150k that is slightly too high for most offers.

That is insane to me. I make less than 80k a year, in D.C., with a mortgage and two kids while I build on the side. A cursory glance tells me most founders aren't under such strict cost regimes. If and when I get funding and go full time I would take the absolute minimum to keep us fed and watered (~60k). How a founder could do otherwise to me is unconscionable.

Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died

#233

Post by girvo » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 4:00 AM UTC

robterrell wrote: post #99

Wow, I just signed up for Everpix two weeks ago. According to this article, they had already written the message announcing their end when they took my money.

On the upside, they've said they'll give it back.

Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died

#234

Post by girvo » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 4:10 AM UTC

darkarmani wrote: post #65

chiph wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a SV resident, nor a startup kind of guy, but one thing I've noticed is that VC firms are hit driven. And when there are periods in time when hits are far apart, you end up with events like the Series-A crunch. I'm wondering if there could be a VC firm that would emphasize a low cost of business (for them) in return for not so many hits, but rather a series of smaller firms that just get on base. They'd build…

> I'm wondering if there could be a VC firm that would emphasize a low cost of business (for them) in return for not so many hits, but rather a series of smaller firms that just get on base. They'd build a pool of talent, and one or more of the firms might hit it big (aka got lucky), but the VC would be more about spreading their bets I think the management and vetting overhead isn't worth it for them. Maybe SV is mo…

Here in Australia, there are lots of high-tech businesses working on unsexy problems who get funding, that no one ever hears about.

The only reason I know anything about any of them is I ended up in the right place at the right time. It's a shame, but that's how it goes.

Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died

#235

Post by girvo » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 4:13 AM UTC

pkmehta wrote: post #227

This article is well-written and The Verge's production quality is tremendous. Can we get more like this? On Everpix - pretty shocked at the candor/level of disclosure in this article including from the founders and Index Ventures. VCs tend to keep mum about their misses so a bit refreshing to see.

For the past year and a bit, The Verge have been lightly dipping their toes into startup journalism. See Alexis Ohanian's "Small Empires" on there for an example.

I personally hope they give it a bigger shot, as it fits their cross-section of tech and culture that they're aiming for, and I've loved the writers since some of them were back on Engadget!

Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died

#236

Post by PanMan » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 4:28 AM UTC

This is one of the first public numbers I have come across on salaries in SF startups: $ 1,168,710. This is for a team of (in the end) 7 people, in about 2 years (started with 3 people). Let's say an average of 5 people. That comes down to $ 117K/person/year. Is that average, or above or below? I know some startups in Europe, and in Europe half of that would be common.

Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died

#237

Post by pavs » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 5:03 AM UTC

imsofuture wrote: post #222

batemanesque wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's a real shame Disrupt carries any weight. the awful hype is one thing, but the fact that it screws over genuinely promising companies due to its grotesquely corrupt nature is a real problem

It's a shame that TC carries any weight. Let's stop beating around that bush...

It's a shame that Arrington carries any weight, really thats where it all started.

Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died

#238

Post by b0z0 » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 5:27 AM UTC

It's incredible to me that an amazing service like this, solving real problems would fail while stupid (let's be honest and call them what they really are) social media startups are prospering all over the place. It's quite sad.

Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died

#239

Post by oijaf888 » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 5:30 AM UTC

650REDHAIR wrote: post #134

homersapien wrote: post #26

Their focus wasn't on the product, it was on living/working in SF. They could have saved a year's worth of AWS payments alone by trimming the fat that comes with wanting to be in a "hip" location.

And shoot yourself in the foot when it comes to future funding, potential hires, and acquisition talks. Of course there are cons to living in SF, but if you're going for a series A after landing an initial investment it makes sense to base out of SF.

Does office space for 7 employees in SF really cost ~10K/month? I know in midtown Manhattan a previous startup I was at had over 5K sq ft for that price.

Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died

#240

Post by qq66 » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 5:43 AM UTC

kshatrea wrote: post #226

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #107

[Everpix] lost the $50,000 first prize [at TechCrunch Disrupt] to Shaker, a bizarre kind of Second Life-meets-Facebook social network that raised $15 million and hasn't been heard from in a year. A promising, arguably 'disruptive' company lost at a TechCrunch event to a startup backed by Michael Arrington? Color me shocked! Shocked, I say!

This happens routinely at Disrupt. I remember a fabulous startup called Prism Sky Labs (could connect to any network camera with drag and drop software and was quite cool in ambition) lost to Qwiki.

Don't feel too bad for Prism Skylabs, they just raised $15 million.