Pretty harsh. Every entrepreneur I know is on an emotional roller-coaster, but that's one aspect of our role that we don't tend to talk about. Often the toughest issues might seem trivial from an outsider's perspective, or even from your own perspective after some time has passed.
I recognized a lot in his account, and it was good to see someone being honest about the internal drama, even at the risk of appearing ridiculous.
It just doesn't seem that dirty to me. I've had such experiences over and over at various startups; it's just part of doing something none of you have ever done before. I especially found sickeningly familiar the part where everything seems to work fine when you try it, and when people try it in front you, but people who are somewhere else invariably run into mysterious problems that they can't seem to articulate. "Well, it's fine now that you're here, but earlier nothing worked!".
So... you're trivializing this guy's experience because somewhere out there, someone else has it worse?
His experience isn't worth writing about because, somewhere out there, someone has experienced something more interesting?
I don't see the logic.
I don't get the negativity here - I thought it was a well-written account of the kind of last minute ninja dance before any launch. The author certainly had a lot riding on the demo, and I didn't find it self-aggrandizing in any overt way.
His life is on the line to the extent that he'll have to work a couple more high-paying computer jobs if he fails to get funding this time around. It's not exactly Russian roulette with three bullets in the cylinder.
I found the histrionic tone and especially the title of the article to be out of all proportion with the content. I don't think my description was in any way unfair. The article does a sufficiently good job of trivializing itself.
"It's not exactly Russian roulette with three bullets in the cylinder."
Nor did he ever claim it to be... I think you're reading far more into that post than was ever implied. It's clear that he has a large amount of personal money invested, and that this demo could be the make-or-break moment for his company - and a culmination of perhaps years of preparation and work. I think that qualifies as a big deal.
You're still trying to trivialize this man's experiences.
I’ve put $50,000 into SetJam so far, and I’ll probably have to put in $50,000 more before I can hope to take in some outside money. I’ve had to spend the last 4 years saving while I built an amazing company for someone else just to have a chance to take this shot on my own again. I’ve got a wife and a baby girl and our life savings is riding on a company that, even if I execute perfectly, has a less than 50% chance of succeeding. Launching this product meant a lot.
I would be very interested in a data point of a successful startup headed by a non-technical founder whose principal role is to harangue and berate and exalt his tech team. Oh, and to make Excel spreadsheets
Isn't that the description of most business men, and thus many entrepreneurs? Isn't that what most manager-types do? They harangue, berate, exalt, go to meetings, have strategic visions, and make Excel spreadsheets.
I believe the CEO of the video game company I used to work at was basically exactly like that. He had been a producer before, and then started his own studio. Granted, his principle role was marketing, business deals, and strategy. He occasionally made comments on design decisions, but everyone knew how to work around him because he didn't know what he was talking about..
This is why I record screencasts for anything that could possibly go wrong in a live presentation. This also frees you from having to remember exactly everything you wanted to do in which order. You only need to remember what you're narrating.
His life is not on the line. He will have the opportunity to take more risks in the future. When he tries out armed robbery, I'll start to believe he's putting his life on the line.
Flipping a coin has a 50% chance to fail, because there's little you can do to affect that probability.
There's a lot you can do to affect the probability of success in a start-up. In fact, everything you do affects that probability.
This is like comparing video poker to a slot machine. On one, you have an opportunity for input. On the other, you don't. So they're not the same thing.
Screencasts are just plain smart when you have your demo, your single shot, your company, on the line. Don't count on the internet working anywhere (especially not a VC's conference room), or EC2 staying up, or your server on your laptop staying up. Give a well paced talk over a perfect screencast and nail it. It's not worth the risk - ever.
You can show it - you should always have access to your app, whether locally on your pres machine or remotely via the hosts internet, but never, never, leave the presentation demo up to chance. There are enough risks in this process, why add one more huge one?
Tough crowd :O I thought it was a really interesting insight into the 'softer' side of starting up, the stress and personal investment of a founder in his company. I know how stressful live demos are even to a fairly sympathetic audience who are going to give you another chance if things go horribly wrong; I could really identify with his description of it knowing how much was riding on it going well.
Why is everybody falling over the choice of words instead of reading the intent ? Clearly putting your life on the line is meant metaphorically, and a 50% chance to fail is probably generous.
Give the guy a break, he's gone the distance, put his money where his mouth is and his future is riding on this, on top of that he's open about it.
Kudos from me, if half the armchair entrepreneur-wannabes in the world would be doing what he's doing it would be a good thing. You really shouldn't discount the emotional roller coaster that a start-up is.
26 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 58.0 ms ] threadExcept, wrapped in several layers of self-aggrandizing drama. An awful lot of hat for very little cattle.
I recognized a lot in his account, and it was good to see someone being honest about the internal drama, even at the risk of appearing ridiculous.
While I applaud his openness, I wonder if he's shooting himself in the foot by airing this much dirty laundry.
His experience isn't worth writing about because, somewhere out there, someone has experienced something more interesting?
I don't see the logic.
I don't get the negativity here - I thought it was a well-written account of the kind of last minute ninja dance before any launch. The author certainly had a lot riding on the demo, and I didn't find it self-aggrandizing in any overt way.
I found the histrionic tone and especially the title of the article to be out of all proportion with the content. I don't think my description was in any way unfair. The article does a sufficiently good job of trivializing itself.
Nor did he ever claim it to be... I think you're reading far more into that post than was ever implied. It's clear that he has a large amount of personal money invested, and that this demo could be the make-or-break moment for his company - and a culmination of perhaps years of preparation and work. I think that qualifies as a big deal.
You're still trying to trivialize this man's experiences.
He totally did. He said he put his life on the line. What really got put on the line was his lifestyle.
I’ve put $50,000 into SetJam so far, and I’ll probably have to put in $50,000 more before I can hope to take in some outside money. I’ve had to spend the last 4 years saving while I built an amazing company for someone else just to have a chance to take this shot on my own again. I’ve got a wife and a baby girl and our life savings is riding on a company that, even if I execute perfectly, has a less than 50% chance of succeeding. Launching this product meant a lot.
Your nonchalance about the whole thing reads to me like:
"Well, you know, if it dies, he can always make another kid."
Factually correct, but rather inhuman.
I believe the CEO of the video game company I used to work at was basically exactly like that. He had been a producer before, and then started his own studio. Granted, his principle role was marketing, business deals, and strategy. He occasionally made comments on design decisions, but everyone knew how to work around him because he didn't know what he was talking about..
(Steve was medium-technical, back in the day, though IIRC he never designed any of Apple's hardware or wrote any of their software.)
It is surprising to me that many years after the fact that you only remember the highs and not the lows.
Flipping a coin has a 50% chance to fail, because there's little you can do to affect that probability.
There's a lot you can do to affect the probability of success in a start-up. In fact, everything you do affects that probability.
This is like comparing video poker to a slot machine. On one, you have an opportunity for input. On the other, you don't. So they're not the same thing.
Do people really just show screenshots or screencasts?
Our demos are also usually performed with trunk code or 1-2 days old at most.
How do you handle it when you get a question about a particular aspect and can't show it?
And yes, you've been VERY lucky. :)
Good luck to him.
Give the guy a break, he's gone the distance, put his money where his mouth is and his future is riding on this, on top of that he's open about it.
Kudos from me, if half the armchair entrepreneur-wannabes in the world would be doing what he's doing it would be a good thing. You really shouldn't discount the emotional roller coaster that a start-up is.
Idle words indeed.