3 ms·

I didn't quite read a lot of skepticism about it being "eventually profitable". Rather there was more hand-waving about "not being a $100M - $1B" business, whic

• slykat 13y ago
  "does every new web business need to be Facebook-scale these days to be worthwhile?" To a VC yes. That's the business model of their fund. I think if Everpix had attracted a different class of investors they might have been more successful fundraising.
  • teleclimber 13y ago
    Exactly. Everybody always talks about getting VC funded, but there are plenty of good money-making businesses that a VC wouldn't touch but that could be great for a smaller investor. Usually these businesses charge for their products and have demonstrated that people are willing to pay.
• username223 13y ago
  Yes. If you're not a Ponzi... um, 10x founder, you're shit to VCs.
• bayesianhorse 13y ago
  Everpix decision to depend on a subscription model with a service that is surrounded by (inferior) free alternatives made sense economically, but it didn't make sense financially. I can't say if they would have had more success with a free model. But in any case start ups are never a safe investment, and blocking adoption rates with a subscription fee certainly limits the appeal to a fund that has to see a potential for extremely high returns.