Check out www.bookhuddle.com, a site where you can track the books you want to read, are reading, your favorite books, etc. Find out what books are newly released, top selling, in most users' lists, and more, by book category.
Not related to the cosmos, but "Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters" is a great book. It presents information in a story format that allows people without much scientific background to understand and appreciate the genome.
I encourage you to work on one or more of your ideas sooner rather than later, even while working full-time.
You seem to be at the stage in your life where you could pursue the YCombinator program (or similar programs). This is one way to fund your ideas without going the self-funded route.
You seem to have the skills that you'll always be able to get jobs at Yahoo or elsewhere. You don't really have much to lose.
Actually, my reading was he (like me) was well past the stage of life where YC funding would be helpful. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but a first round YC bet is something like "cost of living for two college students for a summer". To an established professional with a stable job, this is noise: most of us could fund such a company for three months right out of our bank accounts.
The benefit to doing the YC thing is the exposure to sources for later funding rounds, and the networking that comes with being part of the community. The money isn't the draw for anyone but a brand new graduate. It's just there to make sure no one starves while working on the project.
I don't think any of YC fundees really need YC funding. Most of their friends and families would be able to sponsor a summer's worth of living expenses. I think YC's true value lies in the community of cofounders, connections of PG and Co and the visibility that being a YC startup generates. So, a being funded b YC would be useful to anyone who needs help in these three areas even if the have money. I have enough money to live comfortably for a year saved up but if the US immigration system was more lenient I would have applied to YC in a heartbeat.
If the choices are: 1) get funding, and do it now, and give up even 1% of my company, or 2) wait a year or two, and do it on my own dime, but own it 100%, I'm leaning towards #2.
That seems like a truly bizarre "hoarding" mentality. What about a co-founder? What about an employee? No stock options for anyone?
I think a better attitude would be: "I will give up equity only if it raises the likelihood and magnitude of success".
Some of your comments after your post see to indicate that you feel that it's easy to get funded (it's not) and that you have to give up "creative control" of your business when you take funding (you don't). Getting the right investors gives you a HUGE advantage (if growth/exits figure into your plans-- maybe they don't).
It's not that it's "easy" to get funding compared with, say, getting a cheeseburger. But it's far from impossible. And I think that I could do it.
That being said, it might be impossible. And not relying on it would be a safer position. The point is, if it's easy enough to avoid, why not just save up the money, and then do it?
I certainly don't mind sharing creative control with fellow creators. In fact, it's absolutely necessary, and almost always a profitable move. Two people are more than twice as productive as one, by a significant measure.
YC doesn't take a huge cut, and the folks behind it are smart enough to know that the best investments do the best when they're mostly left alone.
Growth figures into my plans, but less than other factors. The way I see it, I'm in this for the love of creating things, and the paycheck is so that rent and feeding don't get in the way. At Yahoo, I have less say in what happens, and it's frustrating to see the wrong decisions get made. Being able to say "I told you so" rings hollow after a while. (To be fair, Yahoo is a lot less awful than a lot of other companies, and overall, a great place to work. I highly recommend it.)
In any transaction, it makes sense to put yourself in the best position possible. Selling 5% of a 10 million dollar company is better than selling 10% of a 5 million dollar company; same $$, half the price.
The best position possible and the most equity aren't the same thing. If you can sell 1% of your company to an entity that adds 2% to the value, it's a good bet.
Regarding:
"The point is, if it's easy enough to avoid, why not just save up the money, and then do it?"
Here's why not. You take 2 years to save your money and then roll the dice. If you win big, you get 100% of your exit. If you lose, you spend all of your money. If you raise money, you get more funds than you'll save in 2 years. If you spend it carefully, presumably this will up your chance for success. If you win big, you get 75% of your exit. If you lose, you spend all of someone else's money. And you don't spent two years of a finite life doing something that doesn't turn your crank. :-) Add to that that the fact right investor(s) increase your tiny chance of success by a little bit without requiring that you give up any creative control...
Well, there are lots of good reasons.
I'm not disagreeing with the path you're on-- it just seems like you dismissed the alternative for the wrong reasons.
Losing someone else's money is a good point. On the other hand, I can live incredibly cheaply (and have in the past), and these days developing an idea is effectively free, apart from living expenses.
And you don't spent two years of a finite life doing something that doesn't turn your crank. :-)
Spending two years hacking without a boss would turn my crank plenty, even if all that comes of it is that I learn I'm not cut out for running a company, and go back to a job. I don't hate my job. The work itself is great; I just dislike working for someone else.
You've definitely pointed out some of the value in accepting investment, even before it becomes a necessity to keep going. I'll keep what you've said in mind, thanks.
I don't necessarily want to own 100% of my own company, but I want to own at least 51%. I think that Y-Combinator leads to individual ownership that is far less than 51%. Even the founders together will have less than 51%. Am I wrong?
huh? YC usually takes 6% of the company - assuming an equal distribution with three founders at 33% initially, now everyone is at 31.333%, with a combined 94%.
are the lot of you fourteen years old? or just that old mentally? you're sitting around talking about how you will divy up your little hypothetical companies...did you read richie rich comics as a child?
1. get an idea someone gives a shit about. 2. find someone to put money behind your idea. 3. then you can get your rocks off playing god with the stock options. without 1,2...talking about 3 is just mental masturbation
If there's one thing I miss about college it's the 24-hour facilities. Even though there was always "home" it felt more entrepreneurial to work in a dedicated workspace, if a public one.
Everyone has their own reasons, I'm sure. Here are some that come to mind:
- They don't have an idea for a startup
- They've never thought about entrepreneurship
- They don't know how to go about doing it
- They might be afraid to try
- They just don't feel like it; the commitment involved is not appealing to them
- They have other interests in life that are more important to them
- Their life situation prevents them from pursuing a startup idea
I don't quite agree that "web developers" don't have the qualities of "startup founders". Many probably do, but might not show them for whatever reason.
Chance plays a huge role is success, so the qualities of "successful" startup founders might not be that different from the "unsuccessful" ones.
Ambition, passion, persistence, motivation, good communication skills, a certain level of intelligence, ability to work with and motivate people are some qualities (certainly not all) that you'll probably find in founders.
It might help you gain insight on how some employers might evaluate candidates, you can assess where you fit in the matrix, and work on improving in the areas of weakness (this is a long term thing).
I recommend reviewing the technical stuff so you can come out sharp and talk intelligently about those topics. Brain teasers often come up. It's been a while since I interviewed with Microsoft, but I remember lots of questions about data structures, linked lists, traversal algorithms, etc.
Employers are looking for people that are technically solid or show potential, have a good attitude, can work in teams, are good communicators, etc.
I haven't pursued an MBA, but know lots of people that have, including my siblings. All of them seem to have had great experiences with their programs; they learned a lot, met great people, experienced many things during the program that they probably wouldn't experience otherwise, and gotten a broader perspective than they had before.
Many of them have had lucrative career opportunities after their programs and these opportunities probably would not have come by or similar opportunities would come by only much later in their careers. This seems to be a great value of an MBA program, especially one at a top school.
You can also form book clubs there and manage multiple group lists.