4 ms·

Microsoft raised $1M in VC in '81 from TVI (went on to become August Capital - at least shared some partners and LP's). they also burnt through a lot of Bill's

by nikcub 16y ago

Microsoft raised $1M in VC in '81 from TVI (went on to become August Capital - at least shared some partners and LP's). they also burnt through a lot of Bill's parents' money (which is why he had a larger share than Allen) for some reason this isn't part of the microsoft history story and most ppl don't know about it - but it took years for microsoft to gring out decent revenues and profits. 'lifestyle business' is meant to mean a small business where the goal is to gain enough revenue to live from. ie. something between ramen profitable and taking a salary from a VC funded business. I can't really think of a top50 tech firm (on market cap) that didn't raise outside capital at some point.

credo 16y ago
>>it took years for microsoft to gring out decent revenues and profits. Microsoft's first profitable program was Basic and it was released soon after the company's launch in 1975. 6 years after Microsoft launched, TVI invested and obtained a tiny portion of Microsoft's stock. To answer your question on the history, this sole vc investment played a very small part in Microsoft's history and the tiny VC share is one reason why Microsoft was a founder-run company. Btw to be clear,capital can definitely be useful. Youtube had losses running into hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet, VC money helped them make a big impact on the world. However, after Microsoft's model, my preference would be for the model adopted by companies like Google. Google developed great technology and a great monetization strategy before they took in a single penny of venture funds. Again, it is no coincidence that Google is a founder-run company today. All that said, I have no problem with zero-revenue companies that chase vc funding and hope to get acquired (Acquisition is how most VCs get returns on their investments). I'm just suggesting that it is absurd to create silly labels like "lifestyle business" and pretend that risking other people's money (i.e. vc funds) is the litmus test for a true "risk-taker"
- nikcub 16y ago
  I agree re: risk taking. I would go as far as to say that when the fundraising environment is frothy, paying yourself $150k p.a as the CEO of a VC backed firm actually isn't 'taking a risk'. There is a class of entrepreneur who don't quit their job, or leave one foot in that door, until they actually raise money and can pay themselves that salary. for eg. I know of a smallish no-revenue VC funded startup where the CEO and founder pays himself $300k. what the board and investors didn't know is that for the first 6 months in the life of the startup while he was 'salary sacrificing' he was actually consulting with a big co. for $30k a month. I wouldn't call that taking a risk, its the opposite, really The guys grinding out on almost nothing and quitting their jobs are the real risk takers - and that happens with self-funded, family funded, friend funded, angel funded, VC funded or zero funded businesses.
  - cheez 16y ago
    The guy consulting on the side is also taking a risk, he's just being smart about it.

by nikcub 16y ago

credo 16y ago

>>it took years for microsoft to gring out decent revenues and profits. Microsoft's first profitable program was Basic and it was released soon after the company's launch in 1975. 6 years after Microsoft launched, TVI invested and obtained a tiny portion of Microsoft's stock. To answer your question on the history, this sole vc investment played a very small part in Microsoft's history and the tiny VC share is one reason why Microsoft was a founder-run company. Btw to be clear,capital can definitely be useful. Youtube had losses running into hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet, VC money helped them make a big impact on the world. However, after Microsoft's model, my preference would be for the model adopted by companies like Google. Google developed great technology and a great monetization strategy before they took in a single penny of venture funds. Again, it is no coincidence that Google is a founder-run company today. All that said, I have no problem with zero-revenue companies that chase vc funding and hope to get acquired (Acquisition is how most VCs get returns on their investments). I'm just suggesting that it is absurd to create silly labels like "lifestyle business" and pretend that risking other people's money (i.e. vc funds) is the litmus test for a true "risk-taker"

nikcub 16y ago
I agree re: risk taking. I would go as far as to say that when the fundraising environment is frothy, paying yourself $150k p.a as the CEO of a VC backed firm actually isn't 'taking a risk'. There is a class of entrepreneur who don't quit their job, or leave one foot in that door, until they actually raise money and can pay themselves that salary. for eg. I know of a smallish no-revenue VC funded startup where the CEO and founder pays himself $300k. what the board and investors didn't know is that for the first 6 months in the life of the startup while he was 'salary sacrificing' he was actually consulting with a big co. for $30k a month. I wouldn't call that taking a risk, its the opposite, really The guys grinding out on almost nothing and quitting their jobs are the real risk takers - and that happens with self-funded, family funded, friend funded, angel funded, VC funded or zero funded businesses.
- cheez 16y ago
  The guy consulting on the side is also taking a risk, he's just being smart about it.