Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 121 posts

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#101

Post by the_watcher »

showerst wrote: post #88
Animats wrote: post #51

Autodesk. Started with $60,000 put in by the founders. No further investments until the IPO. Current market cap $24 billion. (Autodesk did have some conversations with VCs, but they were so profitable and growing so fast that by the time the VCs had made an offer, it was ridiculously low. Here's the history of those deals.[1]) [1] https://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_32.html

Not to take away anything from the incredible achievements of autodesk, but $60,000 in 1982 was roughly $155,000 today. That's a non-trivial amount of cash to be able to dump into starting a company.

Sure, but still more than qualifies them for inclusion with the companies listed in the article.

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#102

Post by nradov »

dllthomas wrote: post #87
bigtunacan wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is certainly still possible to get loans on collateral. If you have equity in a home then most banks will give you a loan using the home as equity and they don't much care how you intend to use the money. This is what a HELOC is (Home Equity Line of Credit). The bank gives you a loan that is somewhere less than the amount of equity you have in the home for you to spend as you please. If you don't pay it off they t…

As you're less likely to crash a house, maybe he could get a better rate?

If you have a decent credit rating then a new car loan will typically have a lower interest rate than a home mortgage. Car manufacturer captive lenders subsidize the rates to increase sales. And most consumers will default on their car loan last because they need the car to get to work. If you're desperate you can always sleep in your car but you can't drive your house.

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#103

Post by scurvy »

pacaro wrote: post #68
brudgers wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft is also interesting for the amount of wealth it created for regular employees via stock...10,000 millionaires in 1986 dollars. [1] I often wonder about how having so many millionaire employees shaped company culture in the late 80's and through the 90's. [1]: https://www.forbes.com/2010/06/28/microsoft-company-numbers-...

I was only there 1999 to 2013, so I didn't directly experience it, although there were still plenty of "Microsoft Volunteers" when I started. A friend who was there through much of the 90s used to remark that it was great when the share price was exponential because "the assholes" would leave as soon as they could "call in rich", but the people who loved the job would stay. When the share price went flat, "the asshol…

+1 to volunteers and FYIFV. Can attest to both of these.

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#104

Post by doug1001 »

replicatorblog wrote: post #11

I'm one of the authors of this post and plan on releasing an updated version with some companies that we missed on the first pass. If you know of other substantial startups that went far before raising capital, please let me know: JoeFlaherty@FounderCollective. The current list of misses includes: + Grammarly + 37 Signals/Basecamp + Zip Recruiter + Outcome Health + Wistia Who else?

GitHub

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#105

Post by [deleted] »

replicatorblog wrote: post #11

I'm one of the authors of this post and plan on releasing an updated version with some companies that we missed on the first pass. If you know of other substantial startups that went far before raising capital, please let me know: JoeFlaherty@FounderCollective. The current list of misses includes: + Grammarly + 37 Signals/Basecamp + Zip Recruiter + Outcome Health + Wistia Who else?

[deleted]

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#106

Post by dkfmn »

draw_down wrote: post #95
hitekker wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We couldn't believe that this was the best deal obtainable for venture funding of the company, and we were inclined to ask around to see if this was reasonable. But, our Distinguished Financial Advisor informed us that this would constitute ``shopping the deal'' when ``a deal was on the table'' which was right out by the genteel standards of the venture community, and that he could not countenance such unrefined beh…

A bunch of capitalists who have norms against competition. Cool.

Read with a critical eye as I, obviously, wasn't present: in this case it seems likely the Financial Advisor screwed up or simply misunderstood the industry. "Shopping the deal" is only anathema if you've signed a term sheet. Many companies receive/solicit multiple term sheets and accept their favorite.

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#107

Post by mpenn »

replicatorblog wrote: post #11

I'm one of the authors of this post and plan on releasing an updated version with some companies that we missed on the first pass. If you know of other substantial startups that went far before raising capital, please let me know: JoeFlaherty@FounderCollective. The current list of misses includes: + Grammarly + 37 Signals/Basecamp + Zip Recruiter + Outcome Health + Wistia Who else?

Wolfram Research (Mathematica and Wolfram Alpha) - 700 employees, no outside capital.

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#108

Post by mywacaday »

replicatorblog wrote: post #11

I'm one of the authors of this post and plan on releasing an updated version with some companies that we missed on the first pass. If you know of other substantial startups that went far before raising capital, please let me know: JoeFlaherty@FounderCollective. The current list of misses includes: + Grammarly + 37 Signals/Basecamp + Zip Recruiter + Outcome Health + Wistia Who else?

Teamwork.com, entirely self funded by two guys who had a web agency and scratched their own itch in PM software, now doing over 100m in annual revenue. They dropped nearly $1m to change domain which they say paid for itself in three months. Now offering free deskspace and mentoring for other startup SAAS

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#109

Post by swampthinker »

logicallee wrote: post #79
swampthinker wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I definitely have my issues with David Rose, I am floored that you think this business had a "clear path" to a large business. They are essentially trying to become a web portal for every service imaginable, but need $2M to build a website to do this? There are just too many red flags. I don't understand what you see here.

By no surprising coincidence, you've written nearly an exact quote from a VC in the alternative universe mentioned in my first paragraph. After the engineer was turned down, another VC happens to say to him: >[To the engineer from 2117:] While I definitely have my issues with David Rose, I am floored that you think your business has a "clear path" to a large business. >You are essentially trying to completely replace…

I mean, you can give me the condescending response, or you could answer the question and tell me what I'm missing.

Re: Invisible unicorns: Big companies that started with little or no money

#110

Post by logicallee »

swampthinker wrote: post #109
logicallee wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By no surprising coincidence, you've written nearly an exact quote from a VC in the alternative universe mentioned in my first paragraph. After the engineer was turned down, another VC happens to say to him: >[To the engineer from 2117:] While I definitely have my issues with David Rose, I am floored that you think your business has a "clear path" to a large business. >You are essentially trying to completely replace…

I mean, you can give me the condescending response, or you could answer the question and tell me what I'm missing.

I don't get it. Why should I defend or convince you of a throwaway anonymous business plan of a company that has long-since shuttered that I found on a random quora link?

Instead let's do this exercise.

Close your eyes and imagine clearly (please imagine this very clearly) that an engineer from 2117 transported to 2017 is talking to you, and imagine clearly saying to this person "So you would like to completely replace every single (item) in (industry) with a version of your own design that you have not built but which is better in every way and which everyone will use because it's clearly better, thereby you will completely dominate this very competitive industry that has annual R&D in the tens of billions, but you just need $2M to build a prototype and get started? And we're looking at what you want to build on these couple of pages in front of us, with high-school level physics equations that somehow every single person in this whole industry has never thought of?" Imagine clearly looking at it. And imagine clearly dismissing them.

I want you to close your eyes and imagine this scenario. Imagine it very clearly. Maybe sleep on it and try to imagine it as you're going to sleep.

Even though the premise itself (about time-traveling) is absurd, I think it is very easy for you to imagine behaving exactly as I describe you behaving. It's not far-fetched at all.

Post reply on HN