4 ms·
Assuming you're right, then that fear is about money, if your claim stands right. But, if the fear is money, why don't they just let every developer test it ear
by X4 13y ago
Assuming you're right, then that fear is about money, if your claim stands right. But, if the fear is money, why don't they just let every developer test it early for a fee? Σ that up and you end up with a great way to fuel your startup, without causing premature investor-friction.
Here's a number:
$ 5 × (100.000 × ¼) = $ 125.000 in Free Capital
What that means for their customers (Early Adaptors) is this:
$ 5 + EULA + (Freemium of sorts in the future, for loyalty) = WIN
TBH: I thought the same, I mean the decision to lock-out so many potential developers willingly is very bad, or just ignorant. Personally I value their startup high as a replacement of <Enter-Mobile-Framework-Here>, but time is not everything, sometimes you can loose a lot of customers, because of the bad first impression you have made in the beginning.
- karellan126 13y agoGood thought but the numbers they're playing with and hence pressure/expectations are much higher. $5.1m invested dollars in from big VCs already http://www.crunchbase.com/company/famo-us http://www.crunchbase.com/company/famo-us VCs were betting on the longshot that famo.us delivers and actually works as a layer/graphics engine for non-native apps (a $100m+ play for sure). We all saw those bets and the founder certainty as a guarantee this technology would actually live up to the hype where I think we should look at this one more like the VCs did. A 1 in 20 shot and changes everything if it happens vs. expecting it to happen and factoring it in our plans. Hate to say all this because I'm building a browser limit pushing project myself that could have used famo.us...