Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 regim…
Everpix was great. This is how it died
241–250 of 268 posts
Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died
#242Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died
#243Wow. What an interesting example of what's wrong with the venture capital model. A great product dies because the founders "spent too much time on the product". I hope a 9th inning miracle saves the day. If not, thanks for the great product.
From the article: "The reaction was positive for you as a team but weak in terms of whether a $B business could be built." Wow, fuck these guys. It seems like a lot of good ideas are getting left on the cutting-room floor because people are holding out for the next giant thing. I hope the crowdfunding thing is enough to help unlock capital for things like this. (j/k crowdfunded equity is going to be a shitshow) EDIT:…
Startups forget they are one company in a portfolio of companies that comprise a fund.
Venture capital expects a fraction of its portfolio investments to succeed. So it must invest in companies with very large target markets so the handful that succeed can offset the losses of those that fail.
Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died
#244- They were charging too low IMO. The free tier gave away too much for free. If your product is of value then charge for it. People will pay. It does not matter that Apple and Google are giving it away for free.
- They should have spent at least some part of the millions they raised on acquiring users.
- It seems they blew almost all money on salaries and consulting. Even if the AWS bill was $35K a month, the money they had raised was enough to last them for two years and they also had paying customers.
At the end of the day it looks like a classic case of concentrating entirely on product and neglecting the revenue and user growth. You can afford to ignore revenue if you have the growth rate of Instagram or Twitter. But if you have neither revenue nor growth then it's difficult to keep going on VC money.
Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died
#245[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.
I think the best startup in such competitions rarely is the actual winner.
Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died
#246[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.
Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died
#247So I am wondering: as a startup founder / cofounder are you obligated to return investors' money/funds if it comes to the point that you have to shutdown your startup? Or was the raising of the money done with the understanding that investors may never get it back ? Obviously, the answer here depends on the exact agreement(s) between the investor(s) and the founders but I am curious about the typical case. If indeed,…
In both cases, the money enters the company's accounts, not the founders' accounts, and is used over time for business purposes.
If the company fails there's little or no money left to pay anyone back. In an orderly liquidation, there might be a little left over, or picked up from an asset/tech fire-sale. Those amounts go first to pay back creditors, first among them anyone owed salaries, as much as possible. If any is left over, it's split proportionately among shareholders, usually first to 'preferred' shareholders (professional investors). But by this point the liquidated value is likely to be nothing, or pennies on the dollar.
Professional diversified investors understand this: sometimes the shares go to zero, and sometimes debts are uncollectable.
It's not common for the founders to offer personal guarantees of repayment. (In other kinds of going-concern small-business financing, like bank loans or equipment financing, where the founders/officers have the means, they may offer such guarantees to lenders... but not in highly risky tech startups.)
Now, there's a fair chance that the founders themselves depleted savings or ran up personal debts to feed the company – investing/loaning their own funds, working for little or no salary in the expectation of gains later. So it's often still a draining financial hit... but the professional investors aren't expecting a formal debt repayment.
Instead, if the investors think the failure came after a good honest try, and was a learning experience for founders who will succeed at other times and opportunities, they'll favorably consider investing in a future venture, or help place the team elsewhere. So it's never a total loss: everyone learns things to do, things to avoid, and how/when to work together.
Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died
#248500k for consulting???????
Let me break this down a bit: USD 500k at USD 2k/man day = 250 man days A US man year has ~235 man days, so that's just roughly 1 external FTE for a year. Not so much, actually.
Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you. From what I read it seems they cared more about raising money than making money.
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.
Would you mind sharing the P&L statement and/or pitch deck that the verge used in its reporting? The verge's article seems confused, and I think one of the best gifts you could make to the HN community is to teach us from this outcome with actual source documents.
Re: Everpix was great. This is how it died
#250> They spent too much time on the product and not enough time on growth and distribution. The first pitch deck they put together for investors was mediocre. They began marketing too late. They failed to effectively position themselves against giants like Apple and Google, who offer fairly robust — and mostly free — Everpix alternatives. People on HN crap all over MBAs, but these are the types of problems many of them…
So, didn't their investor have any MBAs? These are also the kinds of problems VC investors are supposed to advise on, to protect, you know, their investment.