Thats silly. You never start out trying to get acquihired unless you know exactly what the company you want to get acquihired by, wants. You aim super high for an ipo but if stuff goes south, you can always get acquihired.
I don't think you can 'always' get acquihired. You've got to play your cards right, get just the right team, and have people that the acquihiring company wants. I'm wondering if the acquihire is as easy as most believe it is.
Nope. As long as your idea is reasonable(which is a high chance assuming you have your head on straight which is clearly not the case if you're doing stuff like developing an 'elixir for immortality' or building a 'google killer'), you have some semblance of a product and at-least a seed round in funding, getting acquihired is not at all a problem. Trust me, I've already gotten offers for acquisitions and I've barely begun fundraising.
At the risk of being the guy who doesn't get the joke, I suggest a better failure mode for your life. Unless you're 34 at the moment, you probably have enough time to reconsider so I hope you do.
I believe it's an inferior mode of operation, besides. Having the "at least I can do X if this fails" option lowers cognitive load caused by worrying about the consequences of failure. I don't remember where I saw this, but I believe you are actually harming your chances by setting too harsh an alternative. Then again, you may be different.
I can only hope your posts are a joke but if not, why would someone acquihire you if you were only going to retire? An acquihire is about grabbing a ready-made team in a particular field.
Except they're not doing that. Quite the opposite infact, they've invented a lot of the malware themselves. maybe this too. If I cant have my cake at least i can choose not to fucking pay for someone else(taxes). Smartass.
only in a "free-"market. Also there is a concept of "fair price" for a reason. You can't charge insane prices everywhere, especially for essential items.
It might be, if making music is the only real way you have to make money. Of course, in that case I would hope that you would use your proceeds to pay the service pretty quickly.
Sure, I agree. Not all markets meet the concept of 'free'. But distrokid is competing in a market that is pretty close (helping musicians distribute music to services).
I really like the idea behind rethink and the concept as well. I've also looked at documentation and it seems very simple to use.
Also, I understand that 'benchmarking' databases is extremely situational and generally inaccurate. However, without reasonable ways to measure an increase in performance, its really hard for me to make the decision to switch from mongo to rethink.
What I'm trying to ask is, does anyone have any information that can help me decide where, how, when and why should I use make the decision to switch from mongo to rethink? Not just for me but also so that I can show others in my team to get a consensus to switch.
Is performance the main motivation for your team? If so, we'll be publishing some results soon. In the meantime, there are some non-performance related comparisons with Mongo that you might want to take a look at:
Performance would grant us the best reason to switch. Because otherwise we are quite satisfied with mongo. I have seen the technical comparison. I will keep an eye out for the performance results. Thanks for letting me know.
Unfortunately, lack of evidence that he has funded YC Companies is not evidence that hes a bad VC. I'm not saying he isn't, instead, if you could provide proof from various (more than 5) founders that have obtained funding from him and yet feel this way, it might make for a better argument.
I didn't say he's a bad VC. I'm sure his LPs love him.
He's just not who he markets himself as. It's not about you and your company. It's about him.
As for YC, they have what, 400 companies? For a guy who is supposedly (self-proclaimed) so founder friendly, and has $3B in funds, not one big YC company has taken money from him?
Your proof is not how the Valley works, in my view. They know and so they steer clear. That's the glaring proof. Good companies stay away until it's growth equity. Heck, look at Square. They gave Khosla a board seat as part of a huge valuation. He certainly didnt get that company off the ground.
I know of a non-YC company which did take money from Khosla and had a lot of good things to say about them, actually, but I wouldn't generalize from a single data point.
Heh, seriously? I'm sure the valuation he gave Jack has nothing at all to do with it. Jack didnt need Vinod, big difference. Square would be Square without Vinod.
KV asks for less control provisions than other comparable funds. Indeed, we rarely even require a Board seat. Most often, the founder persuades us to accept one.
These "experiments" are normally companies that no other fund on the planet would finance, as they are extraordinarily risky. In those cases, KV does expect greater equity (due to risk and the fact that nobody else will support the company) than a standard seed or Series A. Would you prefer we just decline to fund them like every fund?
With how much liquity floats around today, there's no such thing as too risky. No, Vinod jumps in early exactly to maximize leverage and over the founders and other investors. Why not simply treat them like any other seed? Then leverage over time with pro rata rights? As an angel, did you ever require insane positioning? And angel investing, as you know, is pretty risky. Seriously, two seats, take a step back see that you are justifying a terrible position for founders right out if the box, most especially when they take the options pool from their shares as well. You talk like it's charity when it's robbery, and then of course Vinod's ego runs wild on them.
I note here you keep failing to answer my questions. Bad Vinod is real and it's not just the experiments. With first time founders, the word is to be very careful with KV and many choose to avoid altogether. New founders, less connected in the Valley, are especially vulnerable.
Completely inaccurate. Many of the companies literally cannot be financed by anyone, with the possible exception of Founders Fund. Moreover, it would be an extraordinary case where we would even ask for Board seats like that. In fact, we would more often then not prefer to avoid Board seats entirely. As a technical matter, you cannot increase your ownership % by investing via pro rata rights, just preserve it.
Keith, you are either getting false information from your partners or willfully misleading here. I prefer the former interpretation since I know for a fact this behavior exists at KV and specifically with Vinod leading the push. That's where the Bad Vinod reputation comes from and where people know to stay away.
I have witnessed a sufficient number of pitches in the last six months to opine from my own vantage point. KV invests in many companies that no other VC in the US will invest in. We also support companies that raised money earlier under different circumstances that nobody else will invest in. (I can't address any historical examples without you guiding me to a particular company, etc.)
You do realize that Vinod has been at this for a long time. And his bad reputation is based on that long history. So why make definitive claims based on six months of data?
Moreover, above you justify the insane terms for those founders. You are doing them a disservice on some false belief they can't get funding. If they build something valuable, they will be fundable. Just cause KV jumps in early doesn't entitle KV to be bullies. Vinod has often been a bully. Being early doesn't justify that noxious behavior and his reputation among those who know suffers because of it.
You've already ignored my questions about specific examples.
"The only way to win is not to play" is always a time honored strategy.
What you say during your PR pitch is almost irrelevant (unless you fuck up catastrophically). The nature, location and the very fact that you're doing a PR pitch speaks much much louder than the content of your pitch.
Insane overreactions are becoming extremely commonplace and quite frankly, its very disillusioning. I'm extremely disappointed in the tech community. Being an ass is not the same as discriminating against or hating a group of people.
#1 is flat out wrong. THERE IS NO SECURITY! Is mcdonalds right? paying people so little that they need another job to not be out on the street? How is that TAKING CARE of employees? Before you say mcdonalds is an exception, theres so many others so dont give me the bullshit about wealth exists because blah.
In capitalism, pay is a result of supply and demand. The truth is that working at McDonald's requires very little skill, and because of that, offers very little pay. I thought they paid a great wage when I worked there during high school.
And you're right, there is no security, so what is your solution other than whining about it?
Those positions require very little skill, and provide very little pay. Correct. The next part is where most people today get the argument wrong; it isn't that those jobs should pay more for the arbitrary sake of paying more.
Those type of jobs are the step for many people that not just have no more steps to take, but have never had any walkway to stand on. Their entire lives have been spent just trying to make it to the next day.
The argument is that those positions are part of a larger, predatory economy or society seemingly designed to keep a certain subset of the country/world subjugated to another. When you see protests about a higher wage at entry level positions such as fast-food and retail, what you're really seeing is the confused, leaderless argument that life sucks for many people and shows no signs of relenting. It's a first world suck, but suck nonetheless.
Source: research into lower-socioeconomic lifestyles while attaining advanced degrees (and living that life when young; thank God for scholarships).
You're right. Been there done that. During a period in my twenties, I had lost my job, had a negative bank balance, and two kids to feed. I was on foodstamps while I worked at the Olive Garden making very little while spending far too long in college subsidized by grants and student loans. I finally graduated, got another job, and was let go within a year.
I now had tons of debt and a degree that was almost worthless. So I joined the Army and left my kids for 16 weeks to attend bootcamp and AIT. Spent 5 years, including a stint in Afghanistan.
Needless to say, I recovered, taught myself how to program, and now run a software company.
Life sucks. For many, it sucks hard. But there are ways out. Most people just don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to do so.
Btw, I'm speaking of 1st world. 3rd world is obviously a different story.
The fact that "make the sacrifices necessary" is a useful attitude for you does not mean the cost-benefit/risk structure is actually adequate for everyone else.
Not at all. I'm referring to many people in the First World.
There's also the structural issue: not everyone can be an entrepreneur, because companies need worker bees to run. You can't run such a strongly hierarchical system as capitalism without some level of social-democratic concessions to enforce that, outside the workplace, my boss and I really are equal human beings.
The solution? How about increasing the wage so that these guys dont have to work more than 20 hours a day? How about taking a loss of a billion dollars to reduce profit from 7 billion to 6 billion but in return provide for a better life for the thousands of less fortunate people? If some shareholder makes a few million dollars less, hes not going to die. But the people that are living on food stamps, might very well.
How does costco manage to do this without going into the red? Im not whining that theres no security, i'm stating that making the claim that there is security is WRONG. How about you read with your eyes open? thanks.
Edit: clarification.
Edit2: another proof that you can make a profit while actually caring for employees: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-trad...
Edit3: The supply and demand crap you spew is total garbage. Nothing is 'just supply and demand'. There is much more including profit creation as a result of fulfilling demand with supply. All I suggest is reduce the profit slightly so you pay your low level workers more. They already make less than a third of what people with education do. How about making it equal to or slightly more than a THIRD?
For reference a $1 billion dollar pay raise spread amongst McDonald's 1.8 million employees would amount to $556 each. Assuming everyone works an average of 20 hours a week, that is $0.50.
Put another way, if McDonald's gave everyone a $3.50 raise in 2013, they would have not made a profit.
Not saying that McDonald's is right or wrong in their practice, but when you spread out money it really doesn't go very far.
BTW a major factor people tend to forget about companies is to look at what market they are in. Companies that care only about costs are going to treat their employees like crap because their employees are simply an expense they have to bear.
Costco doesn't treat their employees as an expense, they treat them as an investment. They believe that by treating their employees well their return will be enough to allow this additional expense. Aka a better environment for their customers, lower theft, etc.
Short term the former is nice, since you only get employees that are awesome after a long time. Given the huge emphasis today on short term gains, guess which companies are doing "better".
Increase wages why? Corporations are not charities, and they have never purported that they are. How is a corporation responsible for someone else's lack of education or skillset?
How? Because of a vicious cycle that begins with the low wages. You pay someone low wages so:
1) their kids can't pay for college => they can't get a proper education => lack of education/skillset in the kids
2) their kids have to work at these 'corporations' because of lack of education so they can put food on the table
3) their kids resort to stealing or some other illegal activity because they didnt have much of a choice => go to juvenile detention => no college => no skillset that you claim is not your fault
Is that enough or do you want me to go out and get some case studies as well?
That's not true. The government offers grants and loans for those with low incomes. I should know, that's how I paid for school. Skillsets and education must be earned; they are not granted.
You're still failing to provide evidence as to how the corporation is the party at fault.
Did you even look at that? Just because you were lucky enough to be able to pay off your loans doesnt mean everyone is. What if they dont find a job in their field? And have to work at minimum wage?
What about the veterans that come back from fighting for the country which includes these 'corporations'? Do the corporations guarantee them a higher salary?
How is that not EXPLOITATION? Just because the rich people are able to keep minimum wage low by having funds and time to spend lobbying, does that mean that it is correct?
If you're being picky please THINK before blurting. It says life could involve CELLS. Which is plural. Which points towards multi-cellular and NOT single-cellular organisms. Also look at definitions of cell. All of which imply cell as being a smaller unit of a LARGER whole. As for your utterly stupid question of why compare it to a cell: BECAUSE they are the basic units of which larger life forms are generally composed.
