3 ms·

I agree with your comment about the wrong conclusion. Google didn't have a monetization plan, it launched in 1998 and didn't do adwords(ads) until 2000. It's al

by abirch 5y ago

I agree with your comment about the wrong conclusion. Google didn't have a monetization plan, it launched in 1998 and didn't do adwords(ads) until 2000. It's always better to have positive cashflow, however, enough capital lets you have more runway. At the end of the day you do need someone who will pay. Not that I dislike attorneys but they could have been a client. If you can show that a doctor didn't prescribe the best drug for their malpractice lawsuit it could bring in some money.

xorcist 5y ago
Google was a research project several years before that! Graduate students wouldn't have demanded that raise only a few weeks in. (Just kidding. Or am I?)
fragmede 5y ago
It's not 1998 anymore is the thing. It's obviously better to have positive cash flow but unless you come up with something that is that huge of a hit, in a market where people both understand your product, but also there aren't entrenched competitors to squash you, there's a lot of hard work to get to a place where your product is worth something your customers. Which is expensive, in both time and money. Both of which OP didn't have enough of.
- abirch 5y ago
  You're right that doing a startup is expensive especially when you look at opportunity costs. Google was going up against Microsoft that was killing off competitors to the point it was on the Simpsons. There are many factors and one of them can be luck. I respect anyone who does a start up because it's easy to be a naysayer. I wouldn't have invested in GlacierMD but I wouldn't have invested in SnapChat because I still don't get it. One thing I did notice is that he was the sole founder. This is the number one mistake according to Paul Graham: http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html oddly enough I'm interviewing for a position that is using the same inputs as the OP but with slightly different outputs and we have a corporate buyer lined up.

by abirch 5y ago

xorcist 5y ago

Google was a research project several years before that! Graduate students wouldn't have demanded that raise only a few weeks in. (Just kidding. Or am I?)

fragmede 5y ago

It's not 1998 anymore is the thing. It's obviously better to have positive cash flow but unless you come up with something that is that huge of a hit, in a market where people both understand your product, but also there aren't entrenched competitors to squash you, there's a lot of hard work to get to a place where your product is worth something your customers. Which is expensive, in both time and money. Both of which OP didn't have enough of.

abirch 5y ago
You're right that doing a startup is expensive especially when you look at opportunity costs. Google was going up against Microsoft that was killing off competitors to the point it was on the Simpsons. There are many factors and one of them can be luck. I respect anyone who does a start up because it's easy to be a naysayer. I wouldn't have invested in GlacierMD but I wouldn't have invested in SnapChat because I still don't get it. One thing I did notice is that he was the sole founder. This is the number one mistake according to Paul Graham: http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html oddly enough I'm interviewing for a position that is using the same inputs as the OP but with slightly different outputs and we have a corporate buyer lined up.