3 ms·

I know of at least one instance of the opposite. This team sold a technology to an established software business for a decent money. If it took these guys thre

by psranga 18y ago

I know of at least one instance of the opposite. This team sold a technology to an established software business for a decent money. If it took these guys three years getting to where they are, it will take at least that much for any competitor/established player. Three years has to be worth something. If you do get acquired for the technology, expect to be have a payments spread out over multiple years (~5 yrs) with employment at acquirer required to collect. I agree with edw that having even a single beta customer will dramatically increase the $ that an acquirer will pay (Humans trust others' judgement more than their own).

HeyLaughingBoy 18y ago
If it took these guys three years getting to where they are, it will take at least that much for any competitor/established player All they have is code. There are plenty of instances where person X codes something that person Y could do in a fraction of the time. Even if you take two equally matched teams, the one that works full time will beat the one that works part time. And that's assuming their skills are equivalent. I agree with edw519: they have nothing until they can prove someone will buy it.
- edw519 18y ago
  "There are plenty of instances where person X codes something that person Y could do in a fraction of the time." Corrollary: There are plenty of instances where I coded something last month that I could code in a fraction of the time this month. It's scary but true. A typical experience: Day LinesOfCode Comments --- ----------- ----------------------------------------------------- 1 250 idea 3 500 add to idea 8 1,200 a few more features 12 1,500 fix some stuff 16 2,400 add more features 20 2,700 getting really cool! 25 1,200 test & refactor 30 800 Holy shit! It's so simple someone could just copy it
  - psranga 18y ago
    A common mistake people good at something make is to assume that the average person who does that is also as good as them. In this case, they are competing against what seems like an established enterprise software company. It's unlikely such a company has the environment to (a) attract good developers and/or (b) ensure good developers produce at peak output. But if the technical aspects of the tool matter to customers, then it's possible that suits will see the value in replacing their technology with something better. Because from a business point of view, it's FAR less risky to buy than to develop. I'm not saying these guys will be able to sell their technology alone (customers are very important), but it's highly non-obvious to me why their technology is worthless.

by psranga 18y ago

HeyLaughingBoy 18y ago

If it took these guys three years getting to where they are, it will take at least that much for any competitor/established player All they have is code. There are plenty of instances where person X codes something that person Y could do in a fraction of the time. Even if you take two equally matched teams, the one that works full time will beat the one that works part time. And that's assuming their skills are equivalent. I agree with edw519: they have nothing until they can prove someone will buy it.

edw519 18y ago
"There are plenty of instances where person X codes something that person Y could do in a fraction of the time." Corrollary: There are plenty of instances where I coded something last month that I could code in a fraction of the time this month. It's scary but true. A typical experience: Day LinesOfCode Comments --- ----------- ----------------------------------------------------- 1 250 idea 3 500 add to idea 8 1,200 a few more features 12 1,500 fix some stuff 16 2,400 add more features 20 2,700 getting really cool! 25 1,200 test & refactor 30 800 Holy shit! It's so simple someone could just copy it
- psranga 18y ago
  A common mistake people good at something make is to assume that the average person who does that is also as good as them. In this case, they are competing against what seems like an established enterprise software company. It's unlikely such a company has the environment to (a) attract good developers and/or (b) ensure good developers produce at peak output. But if the technical aspects of the tool matter to customers, then it's possible that suits will see the value in replacing their technology with something better. Because from a business point of view, it's FAR less risky to buy than to develop. I'm not saying these guys will be able to sell their technology alone (customers are very important), but it's highly non-obvious to me why their technology is worthless.