5 ms·
One of the required reading is his own praising profile? And then he starts the video with a theme song?? Am I supposed to learn from him or worship his person
by soneca 12y ago
One of the required reading is his own praising profile? And then he starts the video with a theme song??
Am I supposed to learn from him or worship his personality?
EDIT: I finished the video. Here is a too long; didn't watch as asked.
The first 18 minutes he is telling Box' history and justifying its existence.
The first advice come at 7:40 - pay attention of the technological changes that are happening in the world.
He try to sell you the idea that is better to do business with enterprise because there is more money on it. Kind of the opposite as advised before about why to start a startup. And even the numbers he shows are shady. He says there are only two ways to make money on consumer tech. Consumers paying you or advertising. That sums up to a total 170 billion dollars market. Note that he leaves Apple and all sort of consumer tech that is not ads or mobile apps purchases. And then he compares that with corporate IT market of 4.7 trillion dollars. But here he includes servers and all infrastructure. Very shady sales technique comparig apples to oranges.
Then at minute 21 he finally cuts the bullshit and start to deliver content. Great content by the way. Worth watching after minute 21. If only he wasn't so Stan S. Stanman at the beginning.
- kiyoto 12y ago> One of the required reading is his own praising profile? And then he starts the video with a theme song?? One thing that we should all consider is that, first and foremost, this lecture was for the Stanford students in the room whose attention span ranges anywhere from 0 and 15 seconds on the topic of enterprise software. I am pretty sure the required reading is a twisted, self-deprecating joke, and the theme song is to get the audience's attention.
- jqm 12y ago5 minutes in with no content I gave up. Anyone got a "too long didn't watch?"
- 7Figures2Commas 12y agoThere was useful high-level content in this video, but anyone who is serious about building for the enterprise should definitely study other enterprise SaaS companies. Box's financials, on the surface, are comparatively unimpressive and some of them even raise questions about the company's long-term viability[1][2]. Some folks argue that Box is in better shape than it might appear to be in[3], but this is based on assumptions which may or may not prove to be valid[4]. [1] http://kellblog.com/2014/03/27/burn-baby-burn-a-look-at-the-box-s-1/ http://kellblog.com/2014/03/27/burn-baby-burn-a-look-at-the-... [2] http://tomtunguz.com/box-ipo/ http://tomtunguz.com/box-ipo/ [3] http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-boxs-aaron-levie-is-a-genius-2014-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-boxs-aaron-levie-is... [4] http://kellblog.com/2014/05/15/the-box-s-1-delayed-ipo-and-the-genius-of-tien-zuo/ http://kellblog.com/2014/05/15/the-box-s-1-delayed-ipo-and-t...
- ghuntley 12y agore: "but anyone who is serious about building for the enterprise should definitely study other enterprise SaaS companies" Can recommend http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/saas-metrics-2/ http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/saas-metrics-2/ as a good starting point.
- capkutay 12y agoI think he's a smart guy...but for the most part his public success is propped up by VCs. That's why for CEO/founder standards, he owns a pretty small portion of his own company