The title of the article suggests that it was a mistake to leave NYC for Palo Alto, but there is nothing in the article which suggests Palo Alto was the problem. You may as well have titled this article "I got screwed by a guy named Ted".
It would probably still have been easier to move forward and develop your app in the Valley. I've been to General Assembly and it's a nice venue and I hope it continues to grown. But you can't suggest that the interactions and people you will meet there will compare to they types of advisors, investors, developers and potential CTO's you would have met in the Valley, or even just in Palo Alto.
Not sure what signed employment contracts have to do with someone flaking on starting a job. Guy doesn't want to work for you, he's not going to work for you. No contract in the world changes that. Companies that give out 5-figure signing bonuses still lose people to better offers. That's life in the big leagues.
You don't make yourself look better by slagging people for doing something that everybody does.
If you want to pick this apart, I'd be interested in knowing the whole story. What was the comp package you offered him?
I mostly agree. If we're talking about employees, California is a Right-To-Work state, so an employment contract is effectively bupkis. In my experience, this is very beneficial for both companies and employees.
Things get stickier if money has changed hands. In that case, you've probably got grounds for a civil suit at the very least, but beyond that, you take your licks and keep on going, which is what it sounds like the author has done.
Cofounders aren't just employees, though. They're also shareholders, as well as nominally members of the board. That confers a different set of legal responsibilities. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I'm not sure if being a corporate officer puts you in a different position regarding employment contracts than just being an employee.
Overall, I think we would agree that Ted's actions were highly unprofessional.
Once you've signed a contract, you're committed.
If you're going to bail, bail before ink hits paper. If you aren't sure about working with someone, make your reservations clear from the get-go.
Are most people truly this unethical? It's one thing to look out for yourself and not take a bad deal (crap equity, undermarket salary, unfulfilled promises), but it's another to indicate commitment (signed papers, lots of talks, knowing the other person is moving across the country for this) and then completely flake out and bail.
I know you can't reasonably say what % you offered (you're still apparently a going concern), but know that people on HN are pretty accustomed to b-school types and their notions of what "significant equity" are.
Again though, the top line here is, we're in the middle of a tech bubble, there are a lot of venture-backed companies, most of them are going to fail, tech comp packages have never ever been higher, competition is fierce, aggressive, and protracted. There has never been a worse time to assume you've got talent locked up.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that someone who isn't 100% sold shouldn't represent themselves as 100% sold. BUT. Oftentimes, we don't demand of others the frank answers we don't want to hear. How many serious sit-down conversations did you have with your potential partner about his commitment level? Your post is "Red flag!" "Red Flag!" "Warning sign!". Well, did you react to any of those flags?
If you didn't: I appreciate the idea of writing a post about the warning signs you've learned people should be looking for. However, if you ignored warning signs that the guy wasn't committed, it becomes harder to sympathize with the idea of a blog post designed to slag one guy for not signing on with your company.
If you did react to the warning signs and diligently qualified and re-qualified this guy and he kept coming back saying "absolutely I am one hundred fifty percent behind you": I agree you got shafted a bit, but again remind you that tech people mostly don't give a shit. A guy who can execute on the level you're saying you needed can simply write his own ticket. The game theory suggests that you have little to gain by lashing out.
((I'm having a really procrastinate-y morning, which comes from knowing I'm working super late tonight, so sorry I'm being so noisy. At least you're not on the logo design thread I'm howling at.*)
a) I'm not a b-school guy, so it's legit significant equity.
b) Understood on the competitive space front
c) Repeatedly, repeatedly had those conversations with him. He NEVER said he wasn't going to start, and I continuously had him reaffirm that.
d) I was somewhat pot-committed at the point that the red flags really started popping up...
I like the lessons. Good to keep in mind while hiring.
Having said that, this might also be a good moment to reflect. How can you make yourself a more attractive founder/company to work with? [You meet a girl, she's hot, she sees you for a bit and then moves on. I wouldn't waste such a nice opportunity for self-reflection. Maybe you need to lose weight or enjoy outings more so the next hot girl sticks..]
tptacek, I like you, but in this particular case Josh really wasn't in the wrong. Definitely not a 'b school' kid; I went to high school with him (so I'm biased) but I can vouch for the fact that he got royally fucked over.
Yeah, but unless the offered equity was 50%... then it's a just a job and probably comes with below market salary to boot. Here's a test for being a cofounder: can one cofounder overrule the other? Then you don't have cofounders; you have a founder and an employee.
Bad advice (and mathematically impossible). 25% definitely qualifies you as a co-founder, if you joined and worked for no cash and all equity, before the first funding event.
No, 25% makes you a sucker -- as much risk as the true founder but 66% less reward and 0 real control. (Obviously assuming 2 founders. If 4 founders then my point doesn't apply.)
Not true. If you have investors and two cofounders, both cofounders will have less than 50% even with an even split. And a cofounder coming on after a lot of work has been done doesn't deserve a full equity split.
How do you get funding without a product? I see this all the time with MBA students fresh out of school. It's pretty annoying. Also, If this doesn't have the makings of someone who saw "The Social Network" and moved to Palo Alto I don't know what does. You ran at the first sign of Failure with a capital F. That doesn't bode well.
Josh, shit is going to happen. Learn to roll with the punches. PA is a startup haven because it's boring, there's nothing to do there but focus on building things. That's to bad things went down the way they did, that's unfortunate. Startups are a dedication game, in my mind at least. You should read this as encouragement next time you encounter difficultly.
We had multiple products and were pivoting to a new product. I don't have an MBA and got initial seed money because of a product I coded myself, and then additional funds based on the success we had with that initial seed funding.
This is what happens when you're a non-technical founder - you become desperately dependent on others, and when they fall through, you can't do any meaningful work (Josh describes what sounds like just reading some blogs and 'thinking' while Ted leaves him on the hook). Sometimes it works, of course, when the CTO you depend on actually is an awesome coder/architect, but you've essentially just increased your startups possibilities for failure with the same amount of upside as if you were just a technical founder in the first place.
I've noticed this dependency of non-technical founders on a "ninja rockstar CTO" is much more acceptable in the NYC startup community than the Valley.
Ideas are a dime a dozen, and there are some investors who will be duped by non-technical types and throw money at it but the solid businesses are founded by people who can actually execute the idea........sounds like this startup might be headed for the dead pool.
and so maybe a good alternate strategy is to prove your business/sales/accounting worth to a technical founder/team that's working on a startup and join them.
This type of stuff happens all the time. It is the result of completely depending on a technical cofounder. Never, ever do that.
This happened to me with one of my products. I am a hacker but the level of expertise the product needed was beyond what I had to offer.
After a certain point in the development process, I was completely dependent on my partner. He never delivered anything on time and finally just stopped working on it when a paying client came around (although I offered to pay him many times).
Now, when I pursue something new, I make sure I can build it myself even if I do find someone I want to work with.
Totally with you Matthew. That was one of my main concerns going into the project -- that we were getting in a little over our head with the tech. We were building on top of another API which was supposed to be relatively plug and play, but turns out we spent almost all of our time (about 6 months) working with them to fix it...that's when I realized that we needed a superstar...lesson learned == exactly what you said, though, thanks for the comment!
Josh - the part that resonated with me the most is your developer keeping you waiting and pushing back deadlines with poor excuses. Like you said, these are big red flags.
You mentioned getting sidetracked by learning rails instead of meeting more people, but I disagree with you on that. You should have kept at it learning rails! Developers want to work with other developers, so just by showing you have the drive to learn coding AND have the business skills needed for a startup proves a lot about your personality to potential tech cofounders.
Edit: you should have stayed in the valley. You'd be surprised how quickly you would be right back in the saddle of pushing your startup. I moved here 3 months ago and it was the best decision of my life, I just wish I made the decision sooner. Come on back when you're ready.
True true, I wouldn't say sidetracked, my rails is decent enough, I was just in a very confused state. I think you make a perfectly valid point about Palo Alto - Davis/my support network is here for the current venture, but I wouldn't be opposed to heading back out there. Congrats on heading out there and making the jump :)
"It is the result of completely depending on a technical cofounder. Never, ever do that."
So hang on a sec. You guys were both doing tech-driven products, agree that you needed a solid person to deliver, and the lesson you draw is "don't depend on tech guys"?
The lesson I'd draw is, don't cofound with people you don't know and trust. And yes, if you don't know people who are required to deliver the goal, perhaps you should change your goal. Seriously, 2 years trying to find a tech cofounder? 1) What would have happened if you used that time to learn to code and get going yourself? 2) Did it ever occur to you that you may have a problem with the pitch? Did you ever get candid feedback on all those awesome people who passed on your golden opportunity?
Co-founding is like getting married. If you have marriage material, the right way to think is: what do we care about, and how can we play to our strengths? You absolutely must not approach it with "I really want to do X, now I just need to find someone to do it."
To develop any product (tangible or virtual) you need manpower. You could code all you want and never complete the product. In order to execute an idea you need help and in order to execute big ideas, you need help from people with diverse skill sets. Its unlikely that you are going to be able to run the whole show and/or control everything.
Something that we never seem to learn (me included) -- You will get burned by implicitly trusting people. To succeed, make sure you put the trust in the right people. Josh, you had it right --- go with your gut, listen to that voice in the back of your head that is giving you hints that this person might not be the right guy even though he presents as a "superstar".
If you're having trouble finding specifically "bi-directional video" guys you may want to expand your search to VoIP devs. Many of the challenges are the same, and the protocols. It is also likely that they will have more experience. A lot of large telcos have dropped big money on VoIP over the last decade. So there's a larger pool of talent available to draw from.
Also, consider the tone of your post, and your attitude in general. Devs have "Red Flags" we look for as well. You give off several. Consider that many people on this board have the skills your looking for, and/or know someone who does. Pay attention to what you are telling us.
"don’t let go of key team members for replacements until the replacement starts"
Not an inspiring message to future key team members.
"We begun parting ways with our developers, started to wind down most of our NYC operations"
So the next smart dev is in Bangalore, guess that means he'll shut it all down again right?
"The highs and lows continued. I realized we shouldn’t support a full production operation until our product was completely done, tested, etc."
Better to think about what you absolutely require compared to the resources you have to 'fully complete' them.
"That Friday, I let Ted know that we need to trim down the team further..."
Then Ted quit the following day with a nice email detailing how things had changed in the last 36 hours and the ways he'd like to help him recruit a few engineers read between the lines.
"the single most unprofessional thing I have ever heard of"
Sending a nice resignation letter is the worst they have ever heard of?
Frankly 90% of this post is detailing poor business and hiring decisions. Then blaming Ted for poor behavior rather than accept responsibility. The author likes to bite off hard technical challenges then complain he can't find someone talented enough to chew it. How is it that he even knows what he can accomplish before he's found his co-founder?
- Startup founders almost by definition have unreasonable ambition – a level of interest, motivation and excitement that exceeds their actual capacity.
- The best people to work with on a project are very dedicated to their commitments and are placed in positions where their dedication is a priority.
- People naturally place a higher priority on commitments that are existing, concrete, regular, place-oriented and are reinforced by the most social pressure from people they know well and interact with most frequently. (1)
So, you get this.
I've totally seen this before, not only having to be the one to say "no" (many, many times) and "I guess I can try working on it for an hour a day" (never enough) but even "wow, sorry, let me try to help" (when a friend's technical co-founder was swamped for months at their day job - again, it's hard to replace an expert or a full-time commitment).
I really think that this was a good person to get with, they honestly wanted to do this, and they thought they could swing it if they made the commitment. But again, that's their ambition talking. Their dedication was stuck at their existing job. I can't imagine the stress this caused both of you and I hope you both move on wiser and more motivated from this.
1. This is why every company wants people on-site, of course.
Looking at it from the other person's point of view, you can discover a surprising amount. The blog post was entirely bashing Ted, but it's pretty clear to me what happened -- Ted told his company he was going to leave (or at least hinted), and then was offered a ton of shiny things such as new projects to stay. The safer route is to stay, so he did. Why? Risk aversion; if he weren't risk averse, he'd already be doing his own startup.
The other angle is dedication/excitement. It's easy to sell an idea remotely but when the crunch comes and you have to work on it, to realise just how much work there is, and how little you actually care. A great hacker has so much vying for her attention that she really won't work on just any random project because you talk the talk, it has to be something interesting that she actually cares about. The number of non-technical people who try to sell me ideas that I can code up for them is growing longer by the day.
Thanks for bringing this topic up. This is a real and serious issue that isn't talked about much. But I should mention one more thing in greater detail, because it's crazy important.
If there's one warning I would give to every potential technical co-founder and those who work with them, it's this.
It's the very same motivation that drives the dedication of many developers — not to disappoint people depending on them — that often leads to a cycle of despair.
Since developers are enthusiastic and don't want to disappoint people they've already made commitments to, they often choose to accept an easier form of cognitive dissonance over another. That is, they prefer to believe that they will make crazy things happen instead of accepting that they made a commitment they can't deliver on (even for perfectly understandable reasons).
So they offer an overly-optimistic outlook or overcommit themselves as a result. They're not being knowingly dishonest as much as believing in something unrealistic. This pathology often starts with procrastination in school and can manifest itself like an addiction: it builds and builds until the individual either hits bottom (the stress is finally too much) or there's an intervention (they are confronted with a reality check or given an out).
Be extremely careful about this because it is the epidemic of software (where estimation is difficult enough if you're completely rational, possibilities are great and heroic feats are legendary). Always be on guard and try to prevent this cycle from happening, because if it takes over an organization, things will begin turning in a Yeatsian gyre.
I have to admit that I don't understand this whole "find a technical co-founder" thing. This isn't like just hiring an employee, you have to be full partners and both "all in" on the project. If you don't already have a relationship before you start, you need to build one before you take the leap. And I particularly don't get how "non-technical" co-founders think they can run the show, when they don't have the expertise to do it themselves.
- Startup founders almost by definition have unreasonable ambition -- a level of interest that exceeds their actual capacity.
- The best people to work with on a project are very dedicated to their commitments and are placed in positions where their dedication is a priority.
- People unfailingly place a higher priority on commitments that are existing, concrete, regular, place-oriented and are reinforced by the most social pressure from people they know well and interact with the most. (1)
So this is just what happens, I think.
I've totally seen this before, both been the person that had to say "no" (many, many times), "I guess I can try helping you out for an hour a day" (never enough) and "I guess I can help" (when a friend's technical co-founder was swamped for months at their day job - again, it's hard to replace a full-time commitment).
I really think that this was a good person to get with, they honestly wanted to do this, and they thought they could swing it if they made the commitment. But again, that's their ambition talking. Their dedication was stuck at their existing job. I can't imagine the stress this caused both of you and I hope you both move on wiser and more motivated from this.
1. This is why seemingly every company wants people to work on-site.
Yikes, this was the original version of my post above (I love to re-edit) and now it's too late to delete it. HN was having some problems when I was posting it, which must be why it's not on my threads page. If an editor can delete it, that'd be appreciated.
But so that this comment isn't content-free, let me tell you where I first saw a project in the "cycle of despair" I mentioned in a reply above. It's Daikatana. I worked on the legendarily-late PC game in late 1999 as a contract programmer.
It was basically this kind of syndrome, trickling down through the development team. John Romero was and has always been extremely ambitious and enthusiastic. He promised way more than the team he could round up was able to deliver. And that's understandable simply because he had a standard of technological feasibility that was based on John Carmack. That'll skew anybody's perspective.
Okay, it was also ludicrous to base the game in four entirely distinct environments.
But I think the basic problem was this cycle of overambition leading to overpromising leading to overcommitment leading to overstressed developers.
>I let Ted’s former CEOs [the one who hesitated on ‘dishonesty’ word association] know what happened
I don't think this was a good idea. As you mentioned the warnings and red flags were all there but you didn't heed them. It's pretty clear that your awe of this guy was clouding your sense of judgement:
"... disappointed because of how much of an impact Ted would have had in taking us to the next level."
Honestly, it seems rather childish to have published something designed to bash another, with little more than a nod in the direction of your own responsibility for the situation.
Perhaps in the future you should consider projects that you can work on yourself without being too dependent on others.
I wouldn't focus so exclusively on someone who specializes in bi-directional video. Given the somewhat desperate nature of your situation, that seems too narrow. Just try to find a kick-ass hacker and assume that he can quickly learn the finer points of your niche.
I think that applies in most cases, and it may in this, but as per some of the other comments, significant video streaming experience (if not bi-directional) is sort of a prerequisite for being able to do what we are doing.
That sucks, I have known people like "Ted" and have learned that any bit of flakiness early on (when you should be trying to impress each other) is a bad sign. 1.5 months is not a long time, though, keep at it!
There wasn't much real work I could do on the product in the state that we were in, because we were thinking about completely re-architecting it when he came on. Also, I agree with what you are alluding to -- if you aren't touching the product, then you probably aren't that much value-add. Personally, though I've demonstrated the ability to be value-add and was working on some key deals...we just never had the product to close them.
Why would you move back to NYC from the bay area? Having just made the move from SF to NYC myself (for personal reasons, although it's been working out professionally so far as well), I feel like the bay is really the place to be for the non-technical cofounder looking for their bad-ass CTO. NYC is absolutely flooded with non-technical cofounders like the OP - it's really a buyer's market in that sense. For me, as a technical cofounder, I'm definitely in the minority here and I can feel the desperation in the voices of all these non-technical people with their "great ideas, just need a CTO". I want to tell them all to move to the bay because there aren't enough of me to go around in NYC.
Yeah I think it would have been nice to stay out there, but my last team member was in NYC, as well as a nice support network (investors, free rent [living at home], friends). I might go back out there at some point :)
Something similar had happened to me. I met a guy on the east coast, skyped him, and ended up flying out there later in the week. Meeting went great, he was excited and ready to roll. I left, communication was good as first, we incorporated and had a conference call from my lawyers office. It got worse quick, he wouldn't answer phone calls text or emails for sometimes days at a time. Tons of excuses. Said he would work on stuff that never got done. I don't think he actually produced any code in the 2-3 months he spent stringing me along.
It was one of the most frustrating times of my life. It felt like someone was holding my actual baby hostage and because he lived so far away, I couldn't go bang on his door until he answered.
I agree with him not wallowing in self pity but it seems that his decision to move back to NY was hasty.
I'm not saying he should have stayed in PA but should have at least spent more time exploring his options here in the Valley.
I know so many developers here that are looking for good product/business people to partner with.
There are a lot of product/business people here but most of them have just an idea and looking for somebody to execute them without much to offer anything in return..
I felt that Josh is one of the exceptions and would have found a good technical co-founder here.
well, at least from the post he sounded like he didn't really want to leave nyc in the first place, and the only reason he moved to palo alto was because ted was there.
Thanks man. To be honest, I wallowed in self pity in private for a few days ;). One of my advisors gave me some good advice right after it happened which made me get back to business "get over it." Surprisingly effective :D
The software on Hacker News is telling me that my comment is too long, so I will have to break it into 2 comments.
Here is part #1:
I do not know Josh Weinstein and for all I know he is a really great guy, and very trustworthy. None of my remarks here should be regarded as aimed at Josh.
However, I am a computer programmer who has worked with a lot of inexperienced entrepreneurs. In the style of the movie Rashamon, I feel like I could write something like Josh's post, where the same events happen yet they have a completely different meaning when told from a different point of view. Certainly, I've had conversations that sort of resemble what Josh describes, and I could pick out the various bits that I, too, would mark as "Red Flags", but for me the red flags concerned the entrepreneur that I was working with.
Again, these comments are not about Josh. But I feel like I've often played a role similar to that played by the developer he describes. And I've backed out of projects at the last minute, just like this developer did. I will here try describe what some of these discussions have felt like on my end.
Week #1:
Entrepreneur: I'm really excited to have you as part of this project!
Me: I'm really excited to be a part of this project!
Entrepreneur: Tracking which ads get clicks in videos is going to be huge!
Me: I think it will change things in a disruptive way and it will be exciting for independent content producers.
Entrepreneur: Exactly, we are going to empower them with information so they know exactly what they can charge!
Me: You understand that this project is too large for me to tackle alone?
Entrepreneur: Of course! That's why I'm putting together a team with diverse talents.
Me: Great! Who else do you have on board?
Entrepreneur: I've been talking to a guy in Britain who is really excited about this. Also a guy in Romania. And I've got a friend, Tom, from my home town who is really into this.
Me: Well, if they are all good, then, yes, a team of 4 programmers would be perfect to get this started.
Entrepreneur: Of course. I mean, just to ramp up. We'll hire more later.
Me: And all of these people are willing to work just for equity? None of these people need money?
Entrepreneur: Everyone is excited to be part of this!
Me: Hmm, okay. Well, I'll be free in 2 weeks and I look forward to ramping up the operation then. How about we do a big Skype call with the whole team at that time?
Entrepreneur: Sounds good!
2 weeks later:
Me: Okay, I'm free now. Are we ready to do the big Skype call?
Entrepreneur: Sure! Tom has worked out the whole marketing plan! He's going to describe it to us!
Me: Marketing plan? Tom is in charge of marketing?
Entrepreneur: Of course! That's what he studied in school!
Me: Oh, my bad. For some reason I thought he was a computer programmer.
Entrepreneur: No, no, he's our CMO. He and I have been working night and day to work out the details.
Me: Okay, I guess it would be good to hear how we might pitch this once its built. Are the other 2 programmers ready to Skype?
Entrepreneur: Oh, yeah, about them, the guy in England got a job at Goldman Sachs, and the guy in Romania won't be free for another month.
Me: What??? Damn, that is a setback.
Entrepreneur: No, no, it's good!
Me: What do you mean good?
Entrepreneur: It gives us more time to get the other details right!!!
Me: But what else matters if we don't have any code?
Entrepreneur: That's where you come in! You can write the code!
Me: But I already told you this project is way too big for one programmer to handle!!!
Entrepreneur: Don't worry, I've got another guy, Bill, who is still in school but has promised he can give us 20 hours a week.
Me: 20 hours a week on top of full time school? Is that realistic?
Entrepreneur: This guy is amazing! He wrote his first complete software app back when he was just 4 years old! He knew Basic before he knew English!
Me: Uh, okay. Well, look, if he can pull it off, then that is great. Is Tom ready with the marketing pitch?
Entrepreneur: Tom, are you ready?
Tom: Sure! Well, for starters, after a lot of discussion, we came up with a name: VisionClaus! Because we offer people a vision, and we are giving away our vision like we are Santa Claus.
Me: Uh, um, how did you come up with that name?
Tom: Well, at first we were thinking of having the word "video" in our name, but then we decided that was too limiting.
Entrepreneur: Yeah, way too limiting.
Tom: So then we asked ourselves, what are we really about? And we realized we are about vision.
Entrepreneur: Yeah, exactly, all about vision.
Tom: And vision has a double meaning, of course, because you have to have vision, as in sight, to see video, but we also offer vision of a higher kind.
Entrepreneur: Yeah, much higher. We've very high.
Tom: We offer a vision of the future.
Entrepreneur: Exactly. We don't give a damn about the present. We're all about the future.
Tom: But also, we have certain core values that we hold to be important.
Entrepreneur: This is the part that means the most to me.
Tom: Above all, we are generous. We want to help people.
Entrepreneur: I find this so moving, at an emotional level, to think about how many people we are going to help. I almost want to cry.
Tom: And who else is generous? Well, Santa Claus is generous.
Entrepreneur: Based on a Christian saint.
Tom: So we realized VisionClaus was the best name for us.
Entrepreneur: And, surprisingly, the domain was still available.
Me: Um, uh, um, okaaaaaaaay. Well, look, that's a cool name and all, but in the short term, the most important thing we can do is write some code. So I think we need to focus on that for awhile.
Entrepreneur: Don't worry! You'll have a lot of help soon! Just start writing code now!
Me: Okay, give me a few weeks and I'll try to come up with prototype.
4 weeks later:
Me: Well, it's taken a lot of hacking but I think I got us a video player that handles diverse media types and tracks clicks.
Entrepreneur: Is that all it can do?
Me: Well, I've been working part-time. Where is that other programmer?
Entrepreneur: He is busy with school. But don't worry! I've got another guy in India who really wants to help us! But I think we need to make this software more exciting!
Me: What do you have in mind?
Entrepreneur: Can you track eyeballs?
Tom: Yes, we need eyeball information.
Me: What do you mean?
Entrepreneur: Like, where are people looking on screen? What interests them?
Me: Uh, well, with specialized equipment, in a lab, we could track eyeballs and generate a heat map.
Entrepreneur: No, I mean, when folks are at home and they watch our videos.
Me: What are you talking about? Obviously we can't track what people look at when they are at home, their home computers don't track eyeball movements.
Entrepreneur: Oh, well, that is disappointing. There is no equipment that can do this?
Me: Yes, there is equipment that can track eyeballs, but no, most folks don't have it at home. Or do you mean you want to mail them the equipment? Where would we get the money for that?
Entrepreneur: Then it's possible? Really? Don't worry about the money! We can raise the money!
Me: Wait a minute, if you can raise that kind of money then maybe you can start paying me something!
Entrepreneur: Oh, well, we can't raise that much. Anyway, we gave you significant, very significant equity in this company!
Me: You gave me 2%, which I appreciate, but it was with the understanding that you'd start paying me once you had some money.
Entrepreneur: And we will! Just hang in their a little longer! Keep writing code! Tom and I are almost done with our investor pitch!
Me: Tom is helping with the investor pitch?
Entrepreneur: Of course! He's our CIOO!
Me: What the hell is a CIOO?
Entrepreneur: Chief Investor Outreach Officer!
Me: Uh, okay.
Entrepreneur: Let's meet in 2 weeks and we'll show you our pitch!
The software on Hacker News is telling me that my comment is too long, so I will have to break it into 2 comments.
Here is part #2:
2 weeks later:
Entrepreneur: Are you ready to hear our new investor pitch?
Me: Yes, I'm ready.
Entrepreneur: We are going to blow you away! We've working till midnight every night to perfect this, and, wow! It's just going to blow you away!!!
Me: Okay, great, I look forward to hearing it.
Entrepreneur: Tom, read him the Executive Summary that we wrote for the business plan.
Tom: "The VisionClaus movement will put you in the driver's seat of conscious, real-time human evolution." *
Me: What?
Entrepreneur: It gets better!!!
Tom: "Humanity now faces an inflection point in its history. Creatures of communication, our societies will be transformed by the growing world awakedness facilitated by the revolution in communication technologies."
Me: What?
Entrepreneur: It gets better!!!
Tom: "What sort of changes can we expect? Will these new technologies empower humanity or enslave the masses? Will we be uplifted to the mountain top, or dropped into the pit? Are we green? Are we social?"
Entrepreneur: What do you think?
Me: That is your Executive Summary????
Entrepreneur: Punchy, isn't it?
Me: You have got to be kidding!!!
Entrepreneur: Uh, what? Why?
Me: What the hell are you selling? You didn't even mention how you are going to make money!!!
Entrepreneur: We didn't? Tom, did we say how we are going to make money?
Tom: Uh, hmmm, that must have gotten cut from the final draft.
Entrepreneur: We better put that back in.
Tom: Uh, okay. So, "monetizing the eyeballs of humanity's new wakefulness?"
Entrepreneur: Was that our final version?
Tom: Uh, or maybe it was "Facilitating real time interaction among needers and givers of services in the new era?"
Entrepreneur: Let's go with that.
Me: Don't you think it would be better to state something a bit more concrete?
Entrepreneur: No, no, we've got to be about vision. It's what makes us unique. Otherwise we'll just be another fly by night startup with a cheap gimmick.
Me: Well, we could also write software that works.
Entrepreneur: Of course, of course, that is very important. Don't you think that's important, Tom?
Tom: Very important.
Entrepreneur: But at this early stage, it's crucial that we impress people with our understanding of the larger picture.
Me: Look, I don't know much about fundraising, but I don't think your approach is going to work.
Entrepreneur: I'll have you know we just had a meeting with the CEO of a $6 billion dollar company.
Me: What! Wow! That is incredible! How the hell did you pull that off?
Entrepreneur: With vision! We impressed him with our vision!
Tom: It's true. He was impressed by our vision.
Me: But how did he hear about your vision? How did you get in front of him in the first place?
Entrepreneur: Oh, he was having dinner with my dad and I dropped in. They are old college buddies. But, listen, he was dazzled with our vision. And I believe he is going to invest $1 million dollars!
Me: Well, if that works out, then we are on our way!
Entrepreneur: We are on our way!
Tom: We've finally made it! After all our hard work! We've finally made it!
Me: So, I guess we have to give a demo?
Entrepreneur: What do you mean?
Me: I mean, of our software?
Entrepreneur: Why?
Me: Well, uh, he's not going to invest $1 million dollars without seeing the software, is he?
Entrepreneur: hmm, I hadn't thought of that.
Tom: Could be a serious roadblock.
Me: But I've got the prototype mostly working. We could explain that there's still some bugs to fix and features to add. Surely he could see through the flaws and understand the basic idea of what we are trying to do?
Entrepreneur: The problem is, we're no longer in the video space.
Me: What?
Tom: Yeah, the video idea was never that great to begin with.
Me: What?
Entrepreneur: I mean, YouTube is way ahead of us already when it comes to tracking clicks and stuff.
Me What?
Tom: If we could track eyeballs, then that would be different.
Entrepreneur: Yeah, see, if we were tracking people's eyeballs, that would be innovative. I could sell that.
Me: What?
Tom: The billionaire dude seemed to like the idea of magnets.
Me: What?
Entrepreneur: Yeah, programable magnets. You put them next to each other and they use self-organizing principles, just like ants, to assemble themselves into the marketing slogans of various companies.
Tom: So like, magnets for Apple would self assemble into the words "Think Different".
Entrepreneur: Like ants.
Tom: Self organizing.
Entrepreneur: We told him you could write the software in a week.
Tom: Can you do it?
Me: What?
Entrepreneur: You realize in a startup situation sometimes its important to pivot?
Tom: Especially in the face of setbacks in the marketplace.
Me: But we haven't suffered a setback in the marketplace. We haven't gotten to market yet!
Entrepreneur: That's because you have failed to give us anything that we can use to raise funds from an investor to hire a team so we can build something that gets to market! We're just trying to cover for your various failures!
Tom: Yeah, dude, and, to be completely frank about this, we're kind of tired of always having to carry you.
Me: What?
Entrepreneur: But we are willing to give you a second chance. You just need to write the code for the self organizing magnets.
Tom: In a week.
Entrepreneur: Can you do it?
And then, surprisingly, I suddenly ended my relationship with this entrepreneur.
Follow up notes: I'm only exaggerating slightly in my description of the above events. There were really several discussions which, when described with perfect accuracy, draw a reaction of "That can not possibly be true." But, yes, it really did all happen like that.
I have, above all, condensed events -- things that played out over many months I'm here describing as if they occurred during a few weeks. I'd have to write a book to describe all the details. Other friends of mine were there with me, working at the same place, and I'm emailing them this thread on Hacker News, so they can comment if they wish.
The funny thing is, I worked with this entrepreneur, on and off, almost full time for 18 months, and part-time for longer, (sometimes paid, sometimes not) and after awhile I realized all the projects we worked on were doomed, because he lacked the seriousness to pull it off. And, funny thing, when I finally quit he threatened to sue me, and he said that I'd betrayed him, and he was very angry. It was a really odd situation.
All of this is to say, there are moments when a developer realizes they need to drop an entrepreneur. That is, sometimes the programmer needs to fire their entrepreneur. As you get to know an entrepreneur, you develop a sense about whether they are capable of pulling something off. Especially if you are working for equity, it really is crucial to believe the entrepreneur can succeed, because if they can't, then you get nothing for all of your hard work. And if you have multiple offers in front of you, you've got to go with whichever entrepreneur seems the most likely to succeed.
Without money, written agreements have almost no value, even in the courts. If an entrepreneur can not pay a programmer, then a written agreement is worthless. Giving equity in a company that has no assets is sort of a joke, and it is a bit of a cruel joke if all the assets in the company need to be created by the programer themselves -- in that case you (the entrepreneur) are basically offering to pay them with equity in themselves: "I'll give you 5% of all of your hard work if you give me the other 95%."
Anyway, I love startups and have spent most of the last 10 years working mostly with startups, and I have to say, if the entrepreneur doesn't seem 100% solid, the programmer should just walk away.
* This is an actual sentence from an actual Executive Summary that I heard as it was read to Michael Donovan ( http://www.donovandata.com/about/executive-biographies.html#... ) by someone who wanted money from him. I've only changed the name of the company that I "worked" for. I later got a copy of that business plan and I keep it with me as a sort of memento of a very strange time.
Hey man you should really turn that into a comic strip or book or something. At least a blog post.
It was both hilarious and informative.
But I think a problem alot of programmers have is standing up for themselves and being upfront and saying "You promised me X and if I don't get it I won't feel obligated to deliver Y"
That is the part that frustrates me. When people either:
- won't stand up for themselves and communicate their needs
- take the passive aggressive route of just walking of and not saying anything when you could have let the guy know how he was failing you.
Now you were pretty much right with what you did. But on the other end the OP was left wondering why.
A couple of awkward but straightforward conversations would have avoided both situations
Could somebody please explain this recent trend of "make your blog posts as skinny as possible"? Does this have something to do with iPhones? Is this the web-design equivalent of bumping the font size on a paper to make it look longer than it actually is?
Is there a reason people do this? It's incredibly annoying.
Saal is right -- narrow columns are easier to read because you don't have to move your eyes as much. Really wide columns make you move your head. It's a bit weird, but apparently it's what the cool kids are doing...so I did it too lol
Here's one of many things you won't learn in that class: NAT traversal http://www.h-online.com/security/features/How-Skype-Co-get-r... Not to mention tuning compression in real time for network properties, echo cancellation, audio/video synchronization, volume leveling, helping users find each other, and privacy settings. I've never done a streaming project and those are just the problems I can think of off the top of my head - I'm sure there are more interesting problems as well.
All valid parts of the general problem, but I think most multimedia networking courses talk compression, QoS, jitter, adaptive protocols, etc . . .
While in no way attempting to say that these issues don't exist or are trivial, what I'm driving at here is that bi-directional video didn't spring fully formed out of the ether yesterday. I saw these issues as part of a multimedia networking course 10+ years ago.
Of course, there is also a ton of research still going on in this area, so it's not like the canonical answer has been found at this point either . . .
Yes, there are many problems/things one "should" know, but how many of them are essential for an MVP? More to the point, the fact that there are some "essential for MVP" things that you can't do doesn't mean that you shouldn't work on the "essential for MVP" stuff that you can do.
And then there's the "not product development" stuff.
There is always something that one can do to move forward.
The problem to me is that the technical parts of a tech startup are usually more than 50% of the company. Maybe it is even 90%. You write the blog post and pose as if you had something. What did you have really? If getting this guy was critical to success and the reason you moved, I think you should focus more on how in the heck you got into the position to consider moving in the first place, i.e. a combination of bad advice from investors that weren't good advisors and you taking that advice. The critical mistake happened when you decided to move out there, not because of the red flags you mentioned. Those were secondary imo.
Actually finding investors and advisors and getting them on board with the project is a big deal. And apparently finding a good CTO takes a lot of time and effort as well.
All valid comments -- I think that ultimately team is the most important, followed by product, which is why I moved, and we were basically doing a reset. We had stuff without him, but I wanted to build the company around him/me rather than the team we had...but agreed in part, for sure
I echo the sentiments of those that say you shouldn't have gone to a space that was way above your technical competence if you don't have an existing relationship with a tech person. I know that limits your options but there are still ideas that are more appropriate for someone like you. Ideas like Groupon which rely more on commerce know-how rather than technical competence. Or a site like BusinessInsider, which can easily be done using Wordpress or open source solutions
We had a few tech people and were building on a platform we thought was stable...it wasn't and that's what motivated me to try and find an A+ player. That's definitely a lesson learned for the future though, so agreed
Hey, maybe you can find a technical co-founder from Stuy. You could probably get in touch with Zamansky and see how that works. Lot of good talent there, as you should know.
Original content is a big part of what makes this site so great, having someone submit their story then be available to comment on the ensuing discussion dramatically raises the bar for quality of conversation. Yes sometimes this crosses the line into spam, but if you feel that an article is all spam then flag it, don't up vote it, and the community will decide.
It would probably still have been easier to move forward and develop your app in the Valley. I've been to General Assembly and it's a nice venue and I hope it continues to grown. But you can't suggest that the interactions and people you will meet there will compare to they types of advisors, investors, developers and potential CTO's you would have met in the Valley, or even just in Palo Alto.