3 ms·

> Why? When you look at all the biggest competitors like Sendgrid, Mailgun, Postmark, and SparkPost, you'll notice that they were all founded around 2009/2010,

by pelcg 3y ago

> Why? When you look at all the biggest competitors like Sendgrid, Mailgun, Postmark, and SparkPost, you'll notice that they were all founded around 2009/2010, and they all have been acquired by now. Because of that, it's common to see them only prioritizing enterprise requirements and optimizing for sales-led growth. So does this mean that Resend won't get acquired? What is your exit strategy other than an acquisition?

paxys 3y ago
"All the big players in the space got acquired or had a big IPO. Instead of supporting them choose our scrappy VC-backed startup so that one day we can get acquired or have a big IPO."
- pelcg 3y ago
  This is what I was thinking possibly an IPO. Resend would need to expand beyond their main TAM when they get email right. I'm wishing them the best.
1thrasher 3y ago
I think this misses the point: regardless of Resend's exit strategy, they are innovating now, unlike the competition (allegedly), and that's the value proposition.
- pelcg 3y ago
  ...Until they have an exit, and they can only have this because they took funding, which is my point. I remember MailChimp not taking any funding for over 20 years and being completely bootstrapped, innovating and useful until they eventually got acquired and not shutdown. Also the same for Postmark. Both are profitable and were bootstrapped for years. Sometimes it all ends the same way, the question is how long for Resend. Since they've taken funding as it is highly likely they are heading for an exit in under 10 years.
autonomousErwin 3y ago
I think this might be a future pattern for a certain group of startups. Company X creates something useful and then gets a acquired but because of natural bureaucracy of large companies Company X slows innovation. In comes...Company Y who can rapidly innovate for a few years until inevitably they also get acquired, then comes Company Z who has the same logic for starting as Company Y and on it goes. This isn't necessarily a bad pattern for either the founders (they get an exit) or the consumers (they get a brief period of innovation). Give it a couple of years and I imagine we'll be getting Resend's successor. As for Resend themselves, I think they're absolutely right - the email APIs today for non-enterprise businesses are ugly and opaque and if they can solve this, all the best to them and if I prefer them to current providers I'd be happy to be a customer.
- ignoramous 3y ago
  Yeah, Heroku is proof enough.

by pelcg 3y ago

paxys 3y ago

"All the big players in the space got acquired or had a big IPO. Instead of supporting them choose our scrappy VC-backed startup so that one day we can get acquired or have a big IPO."

pelcg 3y ago
This is what I was thinking possibly an IPO. Resend would need to expand beyond their main TAM when they get email right. I'm wishing them the best.

1thrasher 3y ago

I think this misses the point: regardless of Resend's exit strategy, they are innovating now, unlike the competition (allegedly), and that's the value proposition.

pelcg 3y ago
...Until they have an exit, and they can only have this because they took funding, which is my point. I remember MailChimp not taking any funding for over 20 years and being completely bootstrapped, innovating and useful until they eventually got acquired and not shutdown. Also the same for Postmark. Both are profitable and were bootstrapped for years. Sometimes it all ends the same way, the question is how long for Resend. Since they've taken funding as it is highly likely they are heading for an exit in under 10 years.

autonomousErwin 3y ago

I think this might be a future pattern for a certain group of startups. Company X creates something useful and then gets a acquired but because of natural bureaucracy of large companies Company X slows innovation. In comes...Company Y who can rapidly innovate for a few years until inevitably they also get acquired, then comes Company Z who has the same logic for starting as Company Y and on it goes. This isn't necessarily a bad pattern for either the founders (they get an exit) or the consumers (they get a brief period of innovation). Give it a couple of years and I imagine we'll be getting Resend's successor. As for Resend themselves, I think they're absolutely right - the email APIs today for non-enterprise businesses are ugly and opaque and if they can solve this, all the best to them and if I prefer them to current providers I'd be happy to be a customer.

ignoramous 3y ago
Yeah, Heroku is proof enough.