191–200 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's partially true, but what also made them popular is exceptional PR, SEO and marketing. Yodlee has some features Mint does not and vice-versa.
No, none of those things made Mint popular. The quality of the product did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you cite any studies that demonstrate this? This is often stated as fact, and I'm sure 'many' lottery winners are less happy, but I would still assume the vast majority would see massive gains in their quality of life and would report increase in their overall happiness. I'd love to read up on any actual data gathered on the topic if you know of any.
Even if it's true [1], lottery winners are a completely different group of people than startup founders who built massively successful companies. Here are some more examples: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveMoney...
Get in, get out - that's a O.G.'s classic
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Often times, companies have no choice but to raise money up front. Tesla and Facebook had to, and both seem to be well on their way to changing the way we behave environmentally and socially. Also, I really really really do not understand all the crap you guys give ad based websites/business models. Advert business has well and long been an established industry, dripping with cash. There are tons of websites out ther…
"Tesla and Facebook had to" Tesla makes physical products. They manufacture. They have inventory. They have a factory. Money is required because they have significant initial capital expenses. I take issue with "Facebook had to". Facebook chose to, they didn't have to. Software companies don't have to. They choose to.
There are plenty of times where the companies (and consumers, and founders) best interests are served by taking early money and focusing on growth rather than profitability, especially if their VCs are open to helping those founders take money off the table as they hit milestones).
my .02
Please. $170 million is "fuck you" money. Aaron and I'm guessing many of the top founders/executives made enough money to never ever have to work again. Fake revolutions are cute and all, but think of how awesome it would be to never ever have to work for the man again. They can do anything they want...for profit, not for profit, TBD (Y Combinator). This wasn't some BS talent acquisition; this was an absolute shitloa…
Aaron is now the lead on the Quicken Online product at Intuit. He'll have to work there for 2 years (or possibly 3 or 4) in fully vest in this exit and unlock his golden handcuffs. So, yes, he has FU money on paper. But, he's got another couple years of working for "the man" first.
It seems possible that he'd get acceleration and be retained through other means (retention bonuses/etc.).
Also, for a company in Mint's position an earn-out is somewhat common (although it would be hard to argue that this would be the case when Aaron is taking over all of Quicken Online).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Fuck You money" is such a myth. More on this soon in another post.
You're posting this on a site built by a guy who had the time and money to dedicate himself to helping create startups because it's a "cool hack". That certainly looks like FU money to me. And for what it's worth, I think YC is way cooler than ViaWeb.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> pay off close friends' debts Honorable, but basically flawed. Your relationship with your friends will change because of something like that, it is very very nice of you to want to share the wealth, but someone that has a sense of honour themselves will either have to refuse your offer or they will accept and it will hurt their sense about themselves. Should you ever find such wealth be very careful how you approac…
Your relationship with the people you know will change, regardless (been there, done that). Many of my long-time crowd are ecstatic to make $15/hr, and we still hang out on a regular basis. After a few mistakes, here's the tack I've learned to take. Treat everything you give as a gift. Don't expect _anything_ in return, and say so very clearly. This keeps you from giving more than you would like to, and prevents the…
That may be, but it depends on the people. There are people that could resent this and see it as you rubbing your money in their face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your relationship with the people you know will change, regardless (been there, done that). Many of my long-time crowd are ecstatic to make $15/hr, and we still hang out on a regular basis. After a few mistakes, here's the tack I've learned to take. Treat everything you give as a gift. Don't expect _anything_ in return, and say so very clearly. This keeps you from giving more than you would like to, and prevents the…
> Part of it is couching it all in the right terms. You aren't doing this for them, you're doing it for yourself. I don't like cheap vodka, I like the good stuff. I don't like Motel 6. Then don't bring it up again. That may be, but it depends on the people. There are people that could resent this and see it as you rubbing your money in their face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get that. Really, I do. But they keep saying it over and over again in a public forum. Who are they trying to convince: the reader, or themselves?
It's a Cult of Personality. Benign, sure, and helpful even, but that's what you have to do to get your message across: repeat it, over and over, from a million slightly different angles. Only nerds -- and people with no persuasive skills (or influence) -- think that saying something "the right way," once, is productive.