|
Anyone dealt with something like this before? Doing freelance programming work has exposed me to a lot of inside knowledge on how various businesses operate. I've never signed any non-disclosure contracts in my life, or any contracts at these jobs even. I just follow orders and get paid. I could easily take this knowledge and create various web apps, replacing these companies. Are there any legal ramifications to doing this?
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 09:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
slapsack posted:Anyone dealt with something like this before? If you haven't signed anything, there likely will be no ramifications of doing so. I'm curious how you plan to actually replace these companies though - presumably they already have some sort of user base? It's probably not going to be as easy as "build it and they will come".
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
slapsack posted:Anyone dealt with something like this before? Strictly legally speaking? No, there's nothing these companies could get away with, but that may not necessarily stop a bigger company from trying to harass you by threatening a lawsuit. As always, if you have serious concerns, retain a lawyer. Non-strictly legally speaking, you'd of course be burning all manner of bridges and these companies (and the companies they know) may never hire you again as a contractor. Aside from those factors, if you think those companies' products suck, and you know how to improve them, and you think the companies involved would never do it right, it may be worth trying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
What kind of hosed up software company doesn't make its contractors sign an NDA? It boggles the mind.slapsack posted:or any contracts at these jobs even. Do you mean to say you are working without any contract whatsoever? Because that's pretty bad for you. They could refuse to pay you and you'd have no particular recourse. Are they going to send you a 1099 even? For your own protection as much as theirs, you should have a standard contract to present if your customers aren't offering you their own. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Dec 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 09:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Do you mean to say you are working without any contract whatsoever? Because that's pretty bad for you. They could refuse to pay you and you'd have no particular recourse. If they have no contract and don't pay him then having his code and using it is a copyright violation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 10:33
|
|
|
Well, fair enough: but they could (for example) pay him less than what they'd previously agreed to pay him, and then insist that that was the contracted fee. Or, that he worked fewer hours then he's claiming. Etc. Basically working on a contract basis without a contract is "faith based" contracting, and not a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
I was going to be doing something with nootropics that hasn't been done before, but I have to wait to see what the FDA's new regs are going to do.  I guess I'll finish my masters thesis and see if there's money in producing cheap (sub 1k) desktop SLA machines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 09:07
|
|
|
I'm a product manager at a startup. Our company went through YC, but I'm not going to be a terribly useful source of advice about how to get in, other than 'don't suck.' I don't quite get the focus on idea generation and plan creation. That's useful, but building stuff and then selling it to people is where the majority of the work is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
3 Stacked Midgets posted:I'm a product manager at a startup. Our company went through YC, but I'm not going to be a terribly useful source of advice about how to get in, other than 'don't suck.' What YC company are you with, if you don't mind sharing? I think idea generation and plan creation are things that are obviously needed, even if you have no experience building a business. If you haven't tried to actually do anything, you may not yet realize how much work is involved in building & selling, and will concentrate on the areas you know. You generally do need a (possibly bad) plan/idea to get started, so it is not surprising to me that those aspects are discussed the most on general interest forums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
taqueso posted:What YC company are you with, if you don't mind sharing? I'm happy to share in PM, but I'd like to keep this username separate from my professional persona. Idea generation is a huge part of creating a product. I've also observed that many people use coming up with business plans as a sort of procrastination that prevents them from progressing. The other part of coming up with ideas for products is planning how to build them. I also think it's a healthy phase to be in if you want to start working in startups. I spent maybe a couple years coming up with ideas that I never executed on before actually working as anything other than a contractor at a startup. One thing that I noticed with myself is that I managed to convince myself that some of my good ideas were not viable. For example, I wanted to create a suit-tailoring company that would allow you to submit your measurements and then to have a skilled tailor in China make it for you. Interviewing people that actually knew the business convinced me not to do it. Earlier this year, I read about a company actually doing that and enjoying early success at it. I doubt I would have succeeded if I had actually tried, but I let my 'research' prevent me from being empirical about testing my entrepreneurial hypothesis. My best advice is that if you want to be a founder (which I have not been, so take this with some salt) is to build your idea on the smallest scale possible first. Get one customer or one download. Create a mockup or a prototype before starting to build something big.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
2nd Rate Poster fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Oct 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
2nd Rate Poster posted:Just went through the most god awful startup experience, and need to vent. I don't understand how you can be "forced" to trade your shares for severance. Also, if the people laying you off knew that they were about to sell the company, and used that insider knowledge to trick you into selling or giving shares to them for a tiny value, that sure seems like illegal insider trading to me. The SEC takes insider trading accusations seriously. If you feel like you've been burned out of a significant amount of money, I'd consider sending a mail to the Feds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't understand how you can be "forced" to trade your shares for severance. Also, if the people laying you off knew that they were about to sell the company, and used that insider knowledge to trick you into selling or giving shares to them for a tiny value, that sure seems like illegal insider trading to me. Ultimately, what bothers me the most is being told one thing (product was a failure, company cutting its losses), and then turn out that is not actually the case SEC enforcement  .
2nd Rate Poster fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Dec 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
2nd Rate Poster posted:SEC enforcement I had several friends involved with a startup back in 2000 who eventually had to contact the SEC because the co-founder had apparently shown forged stock certificates to some investors as "proof" that he had sufficient capital to fund the company. He went to jail and was subsequently deported (canadian) and can never re-enter the country. That is of course anecdotal, but unless you are Too Big to Fail, the SEC does indeed give a poo poo about enforcing the law. ..that said, if your shares were unvested, then all they did was lie to you and there's nothing actually illegal there. Although I don't know why they'd need you to relinquish unvested shares at all, that makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
Unless you signed something saying you can't, you should tell us which company/people did this so we don't accidentally use their product.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
2nd Rate Poster posted:It's real loving lovely and there is a dark sides to startups. I know a lot of people who have been burnt so badly at startups. I know one guy who made a bit of cash but nothing you couldnt make at a corporate gig for a few years (which would be a lot less/work stress). Thats a lot of burnt people for one guy that did kinda ok (and he is at a pretty high profile place). Unless you're a founder and don't need external funding the odds are very much against you in my experience. There's exceptions for sure but they are exceptions. Wildly successful startups where even the cooks get rich are so very rare they make headlines across the world and are talked about for years after. unixbeard fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Dec 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
To the unvested shares question...it was a blanket form they had everyone sign. It was a contract that signed away any claims and stock, and in return you got your severance...I guess it was better then a swift boot.Shaggar.tar.gz posted:I know a lot of people who have been burnt so badly at startups. I know one guy who made a bit of cash but nothing you couldnt make at a corporate gig for a few years (which would be a lot less/work stress). Thats a lot of burnt people for one guy that did kinda ok (and he is at a pretty high profile place). Unless you're a founder and don't need external funding the odds are very much against you in my experience. There's exceptions for sure but they are exceptions. Wildly successful startups where even the cooks get rich are so very rare they make headlines across the world and are talked about for years after. I agree and knew that going in my shot at coming out with money was essentially zero. I was under the delusion that a startup would shield me from a lot of the typical corporate knifings, and that my efforts would be relatively rewarded. Instead my efforts just helped a couple really rich people get richer, while I took a pay cut and a doubled work load. Corporate gigs are the same, a few are enriched at the cost of a lot of work...but its not as overt or all consuming. 2nd Rate Poster fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Dec 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 00:44
|
|
|
Yeah I have done it myself, but now I'm too old/grumpy to kill myself for someone else's half baked idea. I worked at a startup in London once, it was a great business and I came on at a late stage and left after a year anyway. Some of the people had been there from the start (like 5+ years), the owners eventually sold for 110 million GBP (not sure what they got out of it) but the regular staff got absolutely nothing. There's just a gagillion stories like that out there. It can be cool working on new/innovative stuff too (which you typically dont get in a corporate), but just make sure you're actually getting paid along the way and not working for some equity riches dream.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
I thought that founders were expected to dump-and-run after the IPO. Why would you accept the extreme risks and workload associated with entrepreneurship without that extreme payout? I ask this as a naive grad student who would only start a business using that model, and I really want to know who people consider to be "fair" founders. I presumed that businesspeople were dicks by default.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 08:01
|
|
|
Dump-and-run post IPO does not mean that everyone else needs to get nothing. I personally would not accept a deal that involved loving over all the people who were intrinsic to my success. As to dicks by default - My experience has been that most people are not looking to screw me over and want the value that I can provide in a mutual benefit to both parties. Honesty and integrity are important to any lasting business relationship. It is very difficult to continually be a dick. (General business, I don't have any direct experience with an IPO) Maybe big money changes what people are willing to do? Or are they forced into the choice by VC? I have never been in a situation where real big money was on the line. I hope I can maintain my principles should that occur.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 08:17
|
|
|
Like you, I think that it's a terrible thing to do to your employees without warning or with overt lying. But I thought that no one ever expects to get rich outside of the founders and VCs, and so it isn't a dick move by deception. More of a predictable dick move that happens when rich investors try to minize the amount of wealth exiting a company and going into profits for tech guys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 09:26
|
|
|
I can only speak to my experience (two different startups) but there's a lot of coolaid passed out. It does make sense to try to boost morale among your workers by being positive about the company... I mean, you don't want everyone jumping ship just because there's been some setbacks, as long as there's any chance the company will succeed (or even just be bought). On the other hand, it's easy especially in a small company where everyone knows the CEO and the execs and talks with them regularly, to start thinking that they actually, you know, give a gently caress about the welfare of their employees. Which unfortunately tends not to be the case as soon as there's significant money on the table. At my second job, I joined the company on the day they had their first major post-IPO layoff. From that day the company gradually shrank over the next two years from a high of nearly 500 employees to, on the day we were purchased, about 110. A lot of the people still there, and many of those laid off, had vested stock options that were out-of-the-money due to the share price. I was lucky in that, because I had joined so late, half my stock had an exercise price (which is based on the public price the day you are hired) that was in-the-money when it vested (and I exercised and sold immediately); the rest wound up in-the-money based on the per-share price offered by the buyout (but only by a small amount, I made a couple hundred dollars). Many of my co-workers had, on top of their options, bought shares directly using the ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan) shortly after IPO (before I was hired), when the shares were above $10. So some lost thousands and thousands of dollars. This was all based on the relentless optimism of the executives, and the fact that through my entire tenure there, we always had sufficient operating cash to go for at least a couple more years at the current burn rate. But... the buyout, even though many of us were expecting it, showed the execs to be scum. Why? Because a month before the sale (at which point they were certainly shopping the company to various potential buyers), they issued a new batch of Preferred Stock, and handed it out exclusively to the executives and members of the board. So when the company sold, the vast bulk of the money paid went to the execs, who had effectively diluted the public shares to enrich themselves. The public shares still earned a significant premium over the market price, so there were no complaints there... so really it was just the employees, current and former, who got screwed by the deal. I don't blame them for selling the company (it was time), and I don't blame them for not saying they were doing it (they're not allowed), but the push earlier to get employees to buy stocks, and the blatant moneygrab with the preferred shares was pretty scummy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
Having read all these negative posts it prompts me to wonder: why is it that the people who actually build these companies and their products, particularly developers, almost always end up getting screwed out of just compensation while the executives clean up. I don't have a firm grasp of how the spoils of an IPO are distributed via stocks and shares so it's puzzling to me how venture capitalists and CEOs always come out ahead. Is it a lack of comprehension on the part of rank and file workers? It's extremely disheartening to read stories like this; why should I bother investing so much time and effort developing a valuable new product when I could just earn a wage at established company.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 02:16
|
|
|
I have an idea for a website/service that helps students financially unable to study abroad. We will offer exclusive scholarships/grants/loan rates to those who meet requirements and offer easy access to apply for outside ones as well. Additionally, we will look for companies to offer sponsorships for a student studying a relevant subject to study abroad. Obviously I will have to negotiate these exclusive loan rates, scholarships, and grants with the companies. Another special feature I have been pondering over is the ability for a student to start his/her own fundraiser page on the website. Set a goal, raise money, fun. Maybe our business will make enough money to give a goal setter an extra 2% of the goal, cool! After discussion around campus, it seems that the #1 reason students do not study abroad is because they cannot afford it without a private loan, which sounds scarey. There are already websites that offer links to scholarships, but financial needs aren't the #1 concern. They also offer links to private loans, but they are all to the same few places. Their websites are also ugly and not the easiest to navigate. I feel this would be a business that universities would love to associate themselves with in order to help facilitate students to study abroad - which helps to drive legitimate traffic. Money will be generated through advertising. I cannot currently think of another solid way to monetize the business. I have a catchy name already. Thoughts? KITTAH fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Dec 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 05:49
|
|
|
So you're basically acting as a loan broker for students to borrow money and study overseas? How will you secure those loans? What's your idea for pursuing those who default?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 11:58
|
|
|
The Sweetling posted:Having read all these negative posts it prompts me to wonder: why is it that the people who actually build these companies and their products, particularly developers, almost always end up getting screwed out of just compensation while the executives clean up. I don't have a firm grasp of how the spoils of an IPO are distributed via stocks and shares so it's puzzling to me how venture capitalists and CEOs always come out ahead. Is it a lack of comprehension on the part of rank and file workers? I don't think this is quite accurate. The reason the VCs and founders are more likely to come out ahead is because they've put the majority of time and money into the company. Actually it's probably much more accurate to say that the VCs are more likely to come out ahead since they will always have preferred stock, while the founders typically have common stock. Preferred stock basically gives you first dibs to the money made during the M&A process, so until the VCs are paid back, no one else sees a cent. I think you do see some horror stories every once in a while, but from what I've seen in the valley it's not like people are getting ripped off left and right. When the founders make money, the common stock has value, and all of the vested common stock given to employees will be worth the same amount. Vesting schedules are also in place for a reason - should a guy working 4 years on a project with 10k vested shares get the same amount as a guy working for 1 year still working on vesting his 10k shares? It's put in place to reward people for sticking around for the long haul. To the guy who posted the story above, I think there are certain things the founders did which are inexcusable, including misleading you as to the future plans of the company, however it's difficult to say whether it was meant to be malicious, or something the company was forced into. The thing is, these deals are always "in the works" and most of them end up going nowhere. Just because the founders were in talks to sell doesn't mean they weren't still thinking of the long term. It's just one option out of many that come up in a companies life. Now as to why they sold it could be a multitude of things. Maybe the company offered them a value they just couldn't turn down. Maybe the VCs were getting nervous and forced a sale. Maybe the company was doing a lot more poorly than you think and everyone was getting desperate. A lot of this stuff happens behind the scenes and founders don't always communicate it. Whether or not that is the right thing I'm not sure, but it's very common. As far as your compensation, a 6 month cliff on vested stock is pretty common. You were probably working very hard for those 6 months, but I'm willing to bet the founders have been working at least that hard for many years just to get things going, often without pay. Anyway, it seems like you ended up with the lovely end of the stick this time, and you have my sympathies for that, but don't let it sour you from startups. My advice would be to try to get in earlier if you want to take risks for a bigger payday, otherwise you are mostly working for a nice bonus if things work out nicely. I would say anyone past the 10th employee or so shouldn't really count on stock options making them rich, and should be negotiating competitive pay. Disclaimer: I could be full of poo poo about any of this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
Nah I pretty much agree with Keevon. Everyone around here knows a horror story, but the truth is most folks do fine and a lot of those horror stories are centered around events of 2000 and 2001, when thousands of ill-advised companies imploded. I've always advised people to take the bulk of their compensation in salary, not stock, and I think a lot of people in the industry now do this as a matter of course. Stock options should be seen as an incentive, a bonus, a way of getting people invested (literally and figuratively) in the welfare of the company as a whole... but never as a substitute for a competitive salary and benefits package. I have been with my current (very large) employer for over 7 years now, and I've never owned stock in the company. But I'm reasonably well paid (I'm "non-exempt" so I get an hourly rate and earn overtime when I work over 8 hours in a day and/or 40 in a week), have excellent benefits, and could participate in the ESPP if I really wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
Nam Taf posted:So you're basically acting as a loan broker for students to borrow money and study overseas? How will you secure those loans? What's your idea for pursuing those who default? We actually do not give out the loans. We would negotiate an exclusive rate for loans from private lenders, and the student's who qualify will be given some sort of unique code which they give when they apply for the loan through the private lender. It would be a cooperative effort from the private lender and us. I am hoping that I can convince these lenders to offer an exclusive rate to financially needy students who want to study abroad. Hopefully the idea of getting a loan out they otherwise wouldn't (and helping a student accomplish his dreamsssss) would be incentive. I will likely call my personal private loan lender up and discuss this with them, as they are not a corporate giant and will give me some advice. Of course, it would be awesome if we can eventually give out our own loans. I have actually not looked into that process. Will do now!
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
KITTAH posted:Of course, it would be awesome if we can eventually give out our own loans. I have actually not looked into that process. Will do now! You'd be getting into the finance business, so say hello to unbelievable regulation. Best not to enter this unless you come from that industry. As it stands, it looks like you want to collect a finder's fee for matchmaking students with private lenders. You may still run up against regulation here, as a great deal of study abroad programs are paid to the student's home university using existing student aid, but even if you don't there are a great deal of places students can already look between their university's financial aid office, study abroad office, existing lenders, etc. Not to rain all over your idea, but I'd also be pessimistic that any private lender would want to do a deal with you. They already have their own marketing departments to acquire customers, and as Nam Taf points out, so far you bring nothing to the table in the subprime area. IMO, if you want to build a 'business' from matchmaking students and lenders, it may be a good course of action to just start a blog and get into the content business instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
The issue with working for early stage startups as an employee is that you have to make the difference between an employee and a founder absolutely clear. Startups in general require certain sacrifices, you have to work long hours, the company isn't stable, and the work often doesn't utilize your skills. Founders consider those sacrifices worth it because they can implement their vision and succeed and fail on their own terms, with a huge financial reward for success. Early employees, however, have to report to the founders, and if they own equity it has some strings attached. Oftentimes these boundaries get blurred and employees consider themselves founders, only to get a harsh reality check if the big money starts flowing in. Both parties are to blame, the founders may start to think of their employees as peers, especially if they don't have serious management experience themselves, and the employees fall into that and think that they own the company in the same way the founders do. In an insular and informal environment such as a small startup, both parties need to make the effort to maintain those professional boundaries, regardless of the compensation system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
A lot of people think founders get a lot more than they do as well. By the time you go through a few rounds of funding and set aside for all the equity/stock options you've granted, their individual shares are probably in the low single digits. And then 1% of a $50 million company isn't exactly gently caress-you money, especially if you spent the part 5 years living on credit cards. And there aren't a lot of $50 million startups, truth be told.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
snagger posted:All good criticisms. The content website is always plan B if I could not come up with a substantial unique plan for the business. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
I've been looking for good news sites and blogs with info on entering entrepreneurship from a science and engineering perspective, and I really like Hacker News and TechCrunch. Is there something I should know about them before I put stock in these communities' opinions? They seem better than blind Google searches, about comparable to Slashdot's higher rated comments, but I don't want to be following poo poo advice if I can help it. I know I need firsthand experience and a mentor more than Internet advice but I need to make do in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
Analytic Engine posted:Hacker News and TechCrunch. They're a great pair of communities, but you're smart to perceive that they're not without their flaws. HN is generally a positive, helpful community. It isn't hiding some sort of crazy agenda or seedy underbelly. If you want to know more about specifically entering the field, read Paul Graham's articles in the YC library (somewhere within ycombinator.com) - there's some useful and very motivational stuff in there. Better yet, read the published books by the YC partners. Debates tend to sperg out very quickly, but that seems to me to be a common side effect of upvote/downvote moderation systems (see: Reddit). Oh, and don't expect jokes to go over well. TC is a different story. People who follow it better than me can probably provide better detail, but it's historically (since 2010) been an AOL blog whose beat was what company was going where. Simple formula and basically reliable information. In 2011 the site turned into a public airing of dirty laundry once the site's original founder was fired by Ariana Huffington. The staff basically turned over around the same time and the departing writers left drama bomb career suicide notes published for the Web to see. People in the entrepreneurship "scene," who are never to be trusted, whine about TC's credibility having totally gone downhill. Two things you need to know about the site: 1. Regardless of drama, the site is essentially an AOL blog whose job is to turn a profit by writing a post every 20 minutes. This profit motive affects content in a way that it doesn't at HN. 2. From the perspective of YC founders, the site is (or was) a free outlet for press releases announcing new companies as they finish YC's Demo Day or finish raising a VC round of capital. It's like an unwritten YC perk: everyone gets one TC post to try to grab attention. That in mind, I generally just Google "<company> techcrunch" to find out the basics on a startup that I've never heard of, and that's about it. That's all just my take, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
Hackernews is pretty legit (though a little too engineering focused for my tastes). TechCrunch is great for news about companies; the analysis and opinion articles can be hit or miss, but its generally a pretty credible site and the largest "tech industry" news site. PandoDaily is a new site started by former TechCrunch employees and seems pretty good thus far. Mashable is geared a little bit more towards the general masses with a focus on social media and doesn't contain as much analysis, but there are still gems every once and a while (and quite a few interesting articles, regardless of whether it is hard-hitting news or not). Business Insider/SAI tends to be a lot of spammy TOP 10 CRAZIEST articles and industry gossip, but it's a guilty pleasure and usually does tend to aggregate the most important stories. There are a bunch more such as VentureBeat, the tech sections of WSJ/NYT, etc. Good blogs: http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/14/top-ten-vc-blogs-q409/ this is a pretty good list. I would add UnCrunched (Michael Arrington) and Twitter in general to the list. These are the blogs of the top venture capitalists and I would really pay attention to them if you are looking to get into entrepreneurship. Fred Wilson's is especially great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 16:04
|
|
|
3 Stacked Midgets posted:My best advice is that if you want to be a founder (which I have not been, so take this with some salt) is to build your idea on the smallest scale possible first. Get one customer or one download. Create a mockup or a prototype before starting to build something big. What would you say the next step after this would be? I'm trying to start my own business right now, making travel/road cases for performers, and so far, I've made two prototypes, and am working on a third. I plan to get some promotional pictures/cards printed with said prototypes on them, so what should I think about doing after this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
Seems like the next step is to get the word out to some other potential customers that you can make them I think the best option is to do all of these things simultaneously, if possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
Already kind of done that actually. I already have about 10 people who want one, plus two other people, in the biz, so to speak telling others about them. Plus, I get some free advertising from my girlfriend, who has the original model and takes it to her shows. I like the idea of internet ads and whatnot. I'll have to look into that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:The issue with working for early stage startups as an employee is that you have to make the difference between an employee and a founder absolutely clear. Startups in general require certain sacrifices, you have to work long hours, the company isn't stable, and the work often doesn't utilize your skills. Founders consider those sacrifices worth it because they can implement their vision and succeed and fail on their own terms, with a huge financial reward for success. Early employees, however, have to report to the founders, and if they own equity it has some strings attached. Oftentimes these boundaries get blurred and employees consider themselves founders, only to get a harsh reality check if the big money starts flowing in. Both parties are to blame, the founders may start to think of their employees as peers, especially if they don't have serious management experience themselves, and the employees fall into that and think that they own the company in the same way the founders do. In an insular and informal environment such as a small startup, both parties need to make the effort to maintain those professional boundaries, regardless of the compensation system. This is so true and something I fear since I'd like to bring friends in as I grow. I had to make it absolutely clear in my business plan that I'm the owner and that everyone else is an employee. Also, thank god I broke down my business plan into monthly bits. I was feeling so overwhelmed at all I have to do. It's a lot, but now that it's on paper it doesn't feel like such a large mountain over the next few months.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 12:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
Going to summon this thread because I could use the advice. A while back I created and built a web application as a way to solve a problem I was having. It's not my primary business and I didn't build it to make money necessarily, but instead my goal was for it to pay for itself each month (it does) and make something that people like (they really do). Anyway, a company contacted me last week about buying either my company or site and app outright. They wouldn't keep the app as it is today, but instead want to take the tech behind it and integrate it into something they're building. I spoke with them for a while, did my research on their staff/founders and feel like they'd be a good choice to take over what I've built. However, I have a feeling that they're more interested in buying my company outright and then having me wedge my app into their new product, which I wouldn't want to do. Side note: I am being vague because this is the internet after all. Anyway, my question is how do I even begin to work something out with these guys? I have no interest in selling my small company (we do BI stuff, totally unrelated) but would be open to selling the app. Has anyone else ever successfully sold off a side project?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2012 20:11
|
|
