If your work product has a real barrier to entry and strong value like you say, I wish you'd stop coming here to 1) play coy / not describe the product, 2) flog dissatisfaction with VC behavior, 3) throw out outrageous $1T numbers, and finally 4) rile people up with arguments about VB.NET.
Look, it's nice that you got some use out of Microsoft's frankly very irritating old developer tools. But all we're doing here is reorganizing bits, any language will do that job, although it is harder to enlist others in helping if you have settled on awkward means to get there. At some point you will have to "put up or shut up" about the thing you believe you're building.
"Play coy" has nothing to do with it. Holding off the details of the announcement until my Web site is ready to go live and please lots of people is important and the reason for not saying more now.
> 2) flog dissatisfaction with VC behavior
One lesson can learn about VC behavior from my posts is that so far, from all I've written that you don't like, no VC likes to hear at all, not a tiny bit.
So, a lesson for every entrepreneur on HN is that nothing I have written in any way covers what is necessary for VC interest.
Why is this important? VC Web sites commonly emphasize new, advanced technology, big markets, swinging for the fences, ..., etc. Well, my posts promise all of that. But no VCs respond. The same things sent to VCs via e-mail have the same results -- dead. The same things sent to VCs via Twitter -- same thing.
So, from what I am writing here, some thing necessary for VC interest is missing.
IMHO: Essentially ALL the information technology VCs are interested in is traction significant and growing rapidly. Essentially everything without that traction goes in the trash. VCs don't want to say this, but entrepreneurs need to know it or do what I did -- jerk the chains of nearly every VC on both US coasts with pitches of every style. The responses were essentially all zero; essentially the only thing missing was traction.
That VCs want traction is, thus, a fairly solid conclusion and really important for entrepreneurs to know about VCs.
Why are VCs this way? IMHO, the LPs got together and wrote out some severe criteria for VC investments. The criteria are much like in private equity or commercial banking: Only make a financial investment in a financial asset. Technology, algorithms, running code, secret sauce, etc. are all just irrelevant. For VC, the LPs are willing to bend a little and call traction significant and growing rapidly a suitable surrogate for the usual financial assets. Entrepreneurs need to know this.
But for a solo founder with the only capex needed a PC as a first server, the LPs rules are too severe.
But some of the VCs and LPs are making money now.
Here is a secret -- don't tell anyone! If I am successful, then I will have a long track record here on HN saying to the VCs "I told you so." or "You ignored me until I had revenue enough to ignore you." Or I'll be able to point to my posts here as not sufficient for any VC interest. Maybe then, finally, the VCs will be clear on what their criteria are, in one word, traction.
> 3) throw out outrageous $1T numbers,
There is nothing "outrageous" there. Instead it is just simple arithmetic.
If you are willing to entertain that there is a problem such that nearly everyone on the Web will find the first good solution a "must have" (e.g., like horse owners found the Model T), then consider the 1-2 billion users in the more developed countries, that is, where can get some good ad revenue. Assume that those people will go for the solution ballpark 3 times a week and each time see 50 ordinary ads (the user interface is interactive and iterative which is crucial for the core applied math but also good for showing users a lot of ads with, it turns out, quite good ad targeting). Assume the relatively good ad targeting. Then compare with the number of unique users, the daily user traffic, page views, ad impressions, revenue, and market cap of Google and Facebook. Done. Nothing at all outrageous.
Or get a lot of eyeball time each week from nearly everyone in the more developed countries and, presto, bingo, can monetize to $1T market cap.
Sure, a Web site for selling winter sweaters for puppy dogs on line might be an okay business, but, as a first step in picking a business idea or project, pick a problem that nearly everyone has, not just people who have a dog, cherish it, and want to walk it in cold weather. I tried to do that; dirt simple tactic.
The problem? One I had and still have, daily. I believe that essentially everyone on the Internet has the same problem. So far there is no good solution.
Why no solution? Can't get a good solution with only what is common on Sand Hill Road or in the Stanford, CMU, or MIT CS departments now. My applied math is nothing like what the AI/ML people are doing. I have nothing neural. I don't claim that my code is intelligent.
No one screaming for a solution? Well, before the Model T, horse owners were not screaming for the Model T, either. Why not? They could not imagine something both better and at all realistic. Essentially every horse owner had the problem, and the Model T was the first good solution. Same for my work: Internet users have the problem but can't
imagine something both better and at all realistic.
Besides a big theme in information technology is moving ahead! E.g., in the last few months we have seen 14 TB SSDs, 16 thread consumer processors, and, from my ISP, download data rates of 100 Mbps up from about 10 Mbps over the interval, with the prices falling quickly. Main memory is going for ballpark $10/GB, one DIMM at a time, retail. Back there, 300 MB of disk storage weighed 750 pounds and cost $40,000. Big changes. Well, I have in mind another big change but will be not nearly the first.
In lots of other ways, we have seen big changes. E.g., Amazon: They were an on-line book and record shop, but consider them now. How'd they do that? Well when Bezos started, no way was the Internet data rate high enough to permit him to send so many pictures of the products. Now the pictures are so good that shopping in brick and mortar sources does not have better product information, usually much less good.
Big changes are possible.
But, I can assure you, essentially no VC in the country sees my $1T and is interested enough for a phone call, an e-mail, or even a Tweet.
E.g., USV just got a new investing partner who posted
> If you’re a founder or potential founder
building something transformational, I’m
so eager to meet you. I’m on a new
adventure and I’m ready to dive into
yours, too. You can reach me at
Rebecca@USV.com.
So, I wrote her. Hear back? Nope! And I'm not holding my breath waiting!
So, why do VCs post such garbage? Curious. Conjecture: They want to maintain the image that they invest in things that are "transformational" without mentioning traction. So, it's an initial tactic for getting "deal flow" and then deal negotiation.
> 4) rile people up with arguments about VB.NET.
What's to be riled up about? As a platform, I picked Windows instead of Linux -- lots of people and serious organizations have done that.
On Windows, a key to nearly any software development of production software is the .NET Framework.
Okay. Well, Visual Basic .NET can make apparently full use of the .NET Framework. Indeed, Microsoft MSDN Web pages documenting the .NET Framework, and I have about 5000 of them, are all or nearly all just the same for VB.NET as anything else, including C#.
So, what's wrong with writing in Visual Basic .NET? I see nothing wrong. What is the much better alternative? I see no significantly better alternative.
> Look, it's nice that you got some use out of Microsoft's frankly very irritating old developer tools.
What? What "old developer tools"? I wrote in Visual Basic .NET which is an essentially fully up to date language on Windows and very different from the old Visual Basic.
> If I am successful, then I will have a long track record here on HN saying to the VCs "I told you so." or "You ignored me until I had revenue enough to ignore you."
Okay, if an I-told-you-so is your long game then fine. But here's the problem: all these words are absolutely meaningless outside your private context. From our perspective it is utterly indistinguishable from a crackpot rant. You have this major axe to grind with VCs, I don't judge that (have plenty of sour grapes myself), but what are you to gain from publishing an inscrutable diatribe? Ever hear the expression "living well is the best revenge?" It sure as hell is better than confirming their decision not to invest in you by making yourself look crazy.
> Our Odd Startup: 3½ Guys, No VC,
Profitability, and Patience
and I responded with
> My Odd Startup!
> One guy, no VC, patience, problem
identified, for solution, crucial secret
sauce found and scalable, production
quality code written, alpha test in
progress, meager burn rate, no users or
revenue yet.
that is, I responded in kind, and you got
angry.
So, you post a list of unjustified,
pejorative remarks about my behavior:
> play coy
> flog dissatisfaction
> throw out outrageous
> rile people up
Then you posted
> Microsoft's frankly very irritating old
developer tools.
That's uninformed: You must have in mind
Microsoft's old Visual Basic, not Visual
Basic .NET.
Look, in case it is not fully clear yet,
at their Web sites US information
technology VCs, apparently nearly all of
them, are seriously, deliberately, and
harmfully deceiving entrepreneurs. Hacker
News readers should be aware of this fact.
The situation is not particular to me but
to nearly every entrepreneur in the world
who visits the Web sites.
Here is their deception: They claim to
fund information technology entrepreneurs
and list their criteria. But their lists
are deliberately deceptive because they
refuse to list the most important parts of
their criteria. Here are five items,
apparently important to crucial, of their
criteria they refuse to list:
(1) Likely and apparently, the most
important item of their criteria is that
the entrepreneur's project must have
traction or revenue or earnings
significant and growing rapidly.
(2) Likely and apparently, one item of
their criteria is that they regard any
contact directly by an entrepreneur as
"from over the transom" (there is some
scatological symbolism here) and refuse to
consider it.
(3) Likely and apparently, they nearly
always insist on a "team" of several
persons and will automatically reject a
sole founder.
(4) They want an entrepreneur to have
"references". But having references from
CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and
Presidents of some of the world's best
research universities don't count.
(5) They claim to want highly qualified
entrepreneurs, but the qualifications they
want would not help a person get admitted
to a STEM field Ph.D. program, be hired
for a tenure track position in a STEM
field at a research university, etc. And
peer reviewed published papers in a STEM
field and relevant to the entrepreneur's
company don't count, either.
Of these five, likely the most important
is the first one, traction.
E.g., I posted the statement from venture
firm USV:
> If you’re a founder or potential founder
building something transformational, I’m
so eager to meet you. I’m on a new
adventure and I’m ready to dive into
yours, too. You can reach me at
Rebecca@USV.com.
So, here she says "potential founder"
implying that she wants to hear from
persons, including single persons and not
necessarily a team, who are not yet
founders. So, they won't yet have
traction, etc.
She says "building" and not "have built".
So she is considering work in progress.
Then she says:
"I’m so eager to meet you." I can't
believe that.
So, I wrote her. Never heard back anything.
Her statement is just an example of the
theme: VCs won't say what their real
criteria are, and this is clearly both
deceptive and deliberate.
Entrepreneurs are being hurt because they
take the VC bait and invest time and
effort in responding for no good reason.
Again, here is how this VC deliberate
deception hurts entrepreneurs:
VCs don't want to say this, but
entrepreneurs need to know it or do what I
did -- jerk the chains of nearly every VC
on both US coasts with pitches of every
style all for no good reason.
Again, that VCs want traction is, thus, a
fairly solid conclusion and really
important for entrepreneurs to know about
VCs.
> Okay, if an I-told-you-so is your long
game then fine.
No it's not my "long game". It's just a
small side issue and a way maybe
eventually to make a point that should
help entrepreneurs: If I am successful,
then I will be able to claim that I long
tried to get VCs interested and they never
were. So, the lesson for entrepreneurs
is, VC don't know how to pick good
projects, and entrepreneurs should invest
little or no time and effort in contacting
VCs.
Am I angry with VCs for their deliberate
and harmful deception? Yes. But I'm not
as angry as you are with what I posted
that harmed you not at all.
You continued with your pejorative and just
plain wrong remarks:
> crackpot rant
> inscrutable diatribe
> You have this major axe to grind with
VCs, I don't judge that (have plenty of
sour grapes myself), but what are you to
gain from publishing an inscrutable
diatribe?
As I explained, I am in line to help other
entrepreneurs.
> look crazy.
Not at all. The VCs are being
deliberately deceptive and harmful, and I
am warning entrepreneurs.
For your
> But here's the problem: all these words
are absolutely meaningless outside your
private context.
It's not my "private context" at all.
What is on the VC Web sites is
deliberately deceptive and harmful bait to
nearly all the entrepreneurs and not just
to me. What the VCs are doing is not
about me; I'm just one example, but what
the VCs are doing is quite general.
Clearly you didn't know the information
about VCs I provided. So, I was doing
you, along with all Hacker News readers, a
favor. Your response was to become angry
with what I wrote and attack me
personally.
Your attacking what I posted looks
"crazy".
My view is that until the VCs improve
their ability to evaluate projects and the
LPs let such VCs use their judgment,
information technology VC is on the way
out of business. E.g., long on average
their ROI has not been good. And the
world of information technology startups
has changed so much that the old VC and LP
approaches will no longer work.
In business, one of the most important
decisions a founder makes is whom else to
work with. Well, then, no good
information technology entrepreneurs
should want to report to a BoD of VCs --
they just don't have the "right stuff".
Uh, no it's not, I have no skin in the game, I was just pointing out why you're getting downvoted to oblivion. Quoting a different post, attributing it to me, and then imagining my motivations is entering the realm of pure fantasy.
Some local junior college may be able to give you some remedial education in reading comprehension.
I'm being attacked because I'm posting thoughts that are unusual. It's the same as in the usual advice never to talk about politics, sex, or religion. My thoughts are upsetting to some people. One reason for the upset is just simple jealousy. Or, it is common to try to beat down a nail that sticks up. Or to gang up on anyone who does not conform to the group.
Point by point, you have yet to be able to find even a single point where I said something wrong.
But being successful, e.g., even just enough for VC funding, means that something is unusual. Planning and executing a $1T market cap is even more unusual -- just "another Google" comes along only about once each 10 years, and $1T has not happened yet. No doubt plenty of people would have dumped on Henry Ford as he was becoming successful.
I've done NOTHING wrong. The people attacking me need to look at their motivations.
I expected too much of the HN audience; I over estimated that audience and was wrong.
Well, you might consider that VCs really do want to make money, but that they also must filter out a continuous stream of cold emails from starry-eyed dreamers and con-men, and if your emails and references have proven ineffective, the VCs' heuristics--which have nothing to do with you personally--have bucketed them thusly. I suppose one could address that by doubling-down on professional networking, getting better at writing a pitch + value proposition, by recruiting a team with experience writing production-grade software, marketing, running a business, etc., etc.
Bring on the upsetting, revolutionary ideas, but please, put away the vagaries and hurt feelings, for they will not serve well here. Those of us in the industry for a while have heard many, many $Texas sized ideas with no teeth.
You are presuming a bunch of insulting stuff about my project, stuff that just is not nearly true.
Naw: Whatever doubts you listed VCs might have about my contacts they can resolve just by some e-mail with questions or a phone call. They don't do that.
VCs insist that a foil deck be really short. So, there's no room for a lot of, or, really, any details.
For production quality code, that's what I've written. There's nothing wrong with my code for revenue of a few million dollars a month. For 1000 times that revenue, will need a lot of attention to system management, monitoring, administration, etc., by then I'll have some software developers and we'll get some experts at Microsoft, etc. to guide us on what to do. Also Microsoft has some relevant products.
I didn't get into computing yesterday: E.g., at IBM for our AI language KnowledgeTool, I did an all-night coding session and at dawn shipped running code with the main ideas. That afternoon our relevant programmer had my code in our production code, weeks ahead of the approach my work replaced (I kept some code on the stack of dynamic descendancy, etc.). Our group shipped that code as an IBM Program Product, IBM's highest quality software product category.
At FedEx, I wrote some code to schedule the fleet. It saved the company from going out of business and was then long used for planning and evaluation of new aircraft, etc. Since that code worked fine in production, it was production code.
The VCs want references? Okay: I have listed the founder, COB, CEO of a famous Fortune 500 company and the President of one of the world's best research universities with one of the world's best computer science departments -- that person was one of my Ph.D. dissertation advisors.
For "Texas sized ideas", that's all the VCs can pursue. They need to back companies that can achieve $1+ billion exits in 10- years.
The estimate of $1T is first-cut, back of the envelope, ballpark but is not just a wild guess and has some solid data and reasoning behind it: E.g., the work is to deliver a "must have" solution for a problem nearly every user of the Internet in the world has nearly everyday, on average at least a few times a week. For the ads, run ones of interest in the more developed countries, use the revenue and market capitalizations of some well known, successful ad-supported companies, and that's the estimate.
We're supposed to knock one over the fences, and not just by luck but by planning, engineering, etc. No VC has ever looked at my estimates, planning, code, or core technology.
In this thread I listed five criteria the VCs want and my project doesn't have. A solid guess is that those are the crucial criteria. Of those, the main criterion is just traction -- the VCs want traction. My guess, explained here, is that the LPs insist on traction or something close.
I'm not some wild eyed dreamer. Instead, I hold an applied math Ph.D. from one of the world's best research universities and was a researcher in AI at IBM's Watson lab, have been at GE, FedEx, IBM, and in a lot of classified work for US national security.
All that is readily available to the VCs, but they don't care.
When my Web site goes live and if it gets traction significant and growing quickly, then via Comscore, Google's ad data, virality, publicity, etc., some VCs will notice and call me.
But by then with my meager burn rate, I won't need, want, or accept their check -- especially I don't want to report to their BoD and, with their check, suddenly go from 100% owner to 0% owner on a several year vesting schedule to get back to maybe 30% ownership while the BoD can fire me at any time for any reason or no reason. Really the VCs and BoD can just take my company, work, secret sauce, etc. and leave me with nothing. So, sure, as for Facebook and/or Google, I should have two classes of stock so that I can keep control. Hmm. It'd be mud wrestling with the VCs, BoD, and lots of lawyers.
I don't want to be a Delaware C Corp. Being a private company (Trump's companies are private), e.g., LLC, is fine with me.
Yes, the VCs want to make money. On average, in terms of ROI, they don't make much money. It's clear enough that a major fraction of VCs live well enough off their 2% without getting much from their 20%. So, they are making money enough now for all they know how to do.
Look, it's nice that you got some use out of Microsoft's frankly very irritating old developer tools. But all we're doing here is reorganizing bits, any language will do that job, although it is harder to enlist others in helping if you have settled on awkward means to get there. At some point you will have to "put up or shut up" about the thing you believe you're building.