71–80 of 100 posts
I called this one also: http://apps.ycombinator.com/item?id=200025 Another YC company that will soon be going under or losing its founder will be loopt.
I'm asking because your logic re:Tipjoy was sound, and I'd like to see a similar argument for Loopt.
The whole story seems to repeatedly wave the arms and shout: "Hey, Twitter! Hey, Facebook! Here we are! We know how to do this! Hire us, hire us, hire us!!!". At least that's how I read the story. And I'm quite convinced it's their intent. Which shouldn't be a bad thing too.
That's a pretty bold statement, and on the face of it incorrect. Our messages was first and foremost to assure users that their money is still there. And then we made a comment on the market that we failed to succeed in.
But it struck me that you mentioned several times in the article that you know what and how to do, you just don't have the leverage of being the main body. Why would you deny it? Is it something bad? I don't think so. Would you refuse if Twitter or Facebook approached you with a decent offer?
It's refreshing to see this communal response to the closing of a startup rather than the typical icy headlines with droves of disconnected commentary...
I called this one also: http://apps.ycombinator.com/item?id=200025 Another YC company that will soon be going under or losing its founder will be loopt.
Stupid Market...
Downvoted the best comment? That does it. I am going to start at the bottom of the comments from now on. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thats quite common for advisary board positions (usually < 1%)
It's surprising isn't it? that's the same amount you'd give an early engineer. Makes it sound like advisory board positions add an equal amount of value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a pretty bold statement, and on the face of it incorrect. Our messages was first and foremost to assure users that their money is still there. And then we made a comment on the market that we failed to succeed in.
Well, of course customers' money is the most important thing, no doubt about it. But it struck me that you mentioned several times in the article that you know what and how to do, you just don't have the leverage of being the main body. Why would you deny it? Is it something bad? I don't think so. Would you refuse if Twitter or Facebook approached you with a decent offer?
Whether I would choose one thing or another is irrelevant.
If I wanted to get the company bought, or get a job, I'd just have a conversation with any of our awesome advisers to get directly in touch with pretty much anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compete measures iframe includes or javascript widgets - meaning our widgets on 3rd party sites. That traffic is roughly correct in direction, but totally wrong for the volume to tipjoy.com itself. But that doesn't really matter, because it is a service - one usable almost entirely without visiting tipjoy.com. The twitter integration, for example, is completely unmeasured by compete. Finally, traffic is a poor metric…
Thanks for being so open and honest about the whole thing. You said, if you were profitable, you wouldn't be shutting down. But if you think there should be a way to make social payments work then don't you think its just a matter of time when you would be profitable. I mean minimum profitability also doesn't really justify what is called in other posts the 'opportunity cost', but if you are working on something big…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's surprising isn't it? that's the same amount you'd give an early engineer. Makes it sound like advisory board positions add an equal amount of value.
That entirely depends on how early, right? Advisers can definitely be worth more than a single engineer.
Not saying that it isn't good to give your advisors equity but just wondering if you might be better of hiring great engineers and giving them more equity. Probably need personal experience to figure out the right answer (if there is one).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually that's an excellent point that I don't see mentioned enough. Profitability enough to offset opportunity cost - ie, how much you'd be making if you were working in a "real job" - is indeed very hard to reach. Anyone can be "ramen profitable", defining that as say, under $1k a month. In fact, in actual good countries, you don't need to do anything at all to be able to eat. Australia will pay you $1k/month just…
>Australia will pay you $1k/month just to not be a criminal FWIW, this isn't strictly true, at least not in the last 10 years. Provided you are not disabled or retired, Australia will only really pay you ~$1k/month while you demonstrably look for work, or while you are an undergraduate student doing your first degree.
I used to resent people living off the system like this but now having lived in countries without it, I don't mind it anymore. In fact I now support a Norway-style basic income program. They're never going to work, that is completely obvious, just give them the damn money...