veteran

this might be helpful http://venturebeat.com/2007/06/22/sold-to-the-highest-bidder...

I don't understand why publicly lynch some company? why not market let work out its dynamics -- if it is not worthwhile people won't buy it. I am saying this because I have attended Keiretsu forum meetings and these are very nice people.. they maintain office/staff/provide food at events and put in lot of efforts to promote startups..If you have not attended meeting then please do so..They seem to be not making profits by charging startups but covering operational costs (I don't know financial details but this is my guess). Now question is who pays for the services - I feel it is not at all outrageous for companies to pay here because the companies they select are generally already revenue generating companies, many of the companies are not in related field to a particular angel..as a matter of fact they advice you not to invest for quite a few deals when you start so you learn ins and outs..If they start charging more to angel members then the number of angels who engage in the process might drop ..may be you will say those are not right kind of investors who you want but be careful what you wish for. There are number of people in the group who are rich enough to sponsor whole thing but again, that's another model..sponsorship has its own strings attached. Coming back to my first point - just having different operational model does not equate to scam and people without getting facts falling for propaganda is no good

Also a lot to do with inflow of online ad dollars in finance vertical..look at bankrate.com earnings/stock history.. btw, speaking of minimal functionality required and just doing what is necessary for successful business - look at bankaholic.com which was acquired by bankrate (On personal level Johns Wu might have made near about equal if not more money as Mint.com founders -- given it was profitable company). Also, that is even better story compared to this -- Bankaholic gets millions by paying $0 for WordPress.

Ideally, the presenters should have ready answers for most of the questions that were posed after the presentations ..wasn't there a selection process per se? it was odd that many presenters were not prepared for answering market size/distribution etc questions

what's up with the acquisition price ..Intuit's recent acquisitions - paycycle, homestead, and now mint.com all acquired for 170 millions!

Although this message is comforting in my IMO the comparison is not that relevant. There is difference between digital and physical goods when it comes to marginal cost, complexity, and other limits in serving each additional customer.. Also if it is online only marketing with no "human factors" (as in the case of db/OS vendors) involved in the sales process then again the make or break avenues are limited.. Good things are with digital goods you can iterate quickly both in terms of product features and getting the message out.. so if you let nature take its course then a strong and smart competitor will kill you..If you have to win then you have to outsmart at least in a niche..

are you selling assets/domain? or folding into another venture?

Here is something for you to feel good -- http://patrick.net/housing/crash.html

I guess that hacker is really mean spirited..knows how to torment not only twitter but also everybody else in tech community by getting the monkey (techcrunch) drunk ..with this monkey getting high now there is going to be shit (these kinds of stupid stories and discussion) everywhere tech people read news

why not have code that gives reward/discount to both referrer and recipient?..the example of late pickup is really bad because fines work very well..so do discounts

why not open source it?

This is what happens with celebrities in general..they are "one of a kind" but they are not tackling any big problem. Arrington does pretty mundane stuff but he is standing on a tall pedestal .. It is that celebrity virus which corrupts the soul.. Fans are most forgiving so those who like arrington will be surprised by his humility here ..those who think he is getting undue credit will find it disturbing "how can he get away with this by just lip service"..I would say wise thing to do is just don't pay attention to it thinking it is like one of those Paris Hilton thing you should not relate to or analyze..

I have seen this with Scoble and bunch of these guys who don't count themselves part of a company or its decision making - "after" they stop receiving pay check. Even most successful companies mismanage certain things..You can't cherry pick and publish dirty laundry if there is no gross injustice..such things should be highly discouraged because it affects real lives of others

you are right Ajju..this 20,000 exemption number indeed was not enough this year ..I sponsored 2 H1Bs in 2006 and that year it was different..there is just strong appetite for those visas.. I am in full support of increasing that exemption limit because it seems it is pretty finite short fall and don't know why it is not given by priority in the general bucket.. if somebody is doing something on that then let me know how to support.. As far as Paul, you not being able to understand what I say..I don't expect you to understand much of it anyway..from your essay and comments, you come out as a typical guy who has a 100% workable solution (in his mind) but he does not understand the problem or market..

uh..hard point to understand (or swallow?).

I don't believe in this assumption -- "There are certainly some combination of country/startup where the founders would be better off in Silicon Valley - when we are talking about founders who need visas (they can't get EB5 green card which is given based on investment or business visas which are pretty much given to anyone who has valid established business or who are not already in US as a student/employee..in that case founders do get H1B easily transferred for their own company provided they can show company of substance..if they pursued advanced degree here then they don't get in H1B cap)..so limits to be the people without much of resources of their own - who don't understand market here (at least not on first hand basis) and don't have connections..how will they succeed.. why misguide some of them and also fool ourselves that such a thing is useful..especially, given there is much better chance if they stay where they are then they will be able to pull off something successful targeted at the market they already understand

and that too putting up number of 2500 such startups every year ..good idea to write 2 examples to validate it first..tell me some story..

so my point..people should start company where they understand the market and if US wants to benefit from international resources then investors should go outside US because only that will work..because that is right for startups/founders/investors..

I guess I am already down voted so I don't want to get into debate in here..but to answer your question..what's wrong ..the global and (in turn sustainable US development) will happen if more startups succeed..and that has to happen on global basis because global opportunities are huge.. I feel startup teams can succeed only if they understand market and have necessary resources in terms of human capital not just money (that too just seed stage investment).. and with an very insider's view I don't see how someone comes to SV/SF from outside gets that just because they have visa..and what kind of magic we have that makes them overcome handicap of being in foreign market when now there is really opportunities everywhere.. if they really develop business targeted at markets they understand there is more likelihood they will succeed..everyone wins that way.. so better option my view for America's growth is to investors and entrepreneurs here to go out and meet right people/sponsor more business visas/open up more cross-border trade channels/form symbiotic relationships with mutual respect (not like quoting word startup when it comes to the company in India :) ..getting stuck in the idea that we have the opportunities and just that once we open up our door right people will come rolling in is not valid..

Another quick clarification - I am not saying the list has "small investors" in the sense they have less personal fortunes or these are small/less influential people..and also they don't have ability is wrong phrase..actually, my point is these and all other folks should also think of they crossing the boundaries themselves and help America tap the enormous resources in a truly global society

shared some thoughts over here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=557552 so my take is not visas for foreign founders but the investors and entrepreneurs here more often crossing the boundaries of US and finding/nurturing growth global opportunities is needed..Just to be clear I am not saying there are no opportunities in US..or you should not start business here..or it is not easier for people in US (if they have roots here) compared to people elsewhere.. only thing if someone wants to tap international resources (either here or outside US) then the old thinking of solution is visas for America is way outdated.. at least it is not that obvious and easy so before developing such "product offering" do study the targeted "customers" well and don't just think from supplier side

Is it incidental that except for one or two guys in essay review are all people who are small investors who don't have ability to open investment shop in India/China?..

May be 20 yrs back this was relevant but today just because you offer does not mean quality people need it..so before proposing was there actually needs analysis..did somebody read the Chinese social networks are ahead in revenue numbers and there is huge investment in electric cars..same story with other emerging markets and don't think there are no investment funds there..obviously, people will say there is not enough support but in Silicon valley also beyond seed stage very few outsiders get the funding..checkout thefunded.com for more information..so if you are smart/hard working then stay where you are because you can create opportunities..also worthwhile to read mercury news story about dwindling public companies in silicon valley.. the other part of the story is not there but you can very well guess.. world is flat!

Btw, I have 2 investments in Indian companies and I would not advise them coming to US unless they establish themselves well..simply because starting and growing a company is not easy if you do not have well established connections and good market read..hiring good people also needs good connections..most of the time your early employees are your friends or past coworkers.. This kind of arrangement will work only if the people are going to hand over reins to someone local ..this is exactly and only suitable for mass investors like Ron Conway/YCombinator..and I don't want to say anything on this forum but entrepreneurs while choosing the investor need to see lot more than initial recognition.. I know many people will oppose me here but just walk through a case scenario where this will work..also if you are going to throw in Google example then please do thorough analysis.. My advice to young entrepreneur is just go in the market where you understand things not that looks shiny.. there are no overnight successes..and don't quit something you have (can have) simply on the word of an investor..definitely not for the people who can not be with you till you get cash flow positive..(just to be clear I am not taking swipe at either Ron or YCombinator program..i am just talking in context of extending (and "assuming") its relevance to international teams without really understanding the other side)

not if you want to make some money out of it..you need to justify you own domain because your have business tied to it and nothing to do with their brand..and then only you can hold it/may be later sell it..careful, arrington is from domain industry so it is tough party on other end ..so be smart in how you handle.. (assuming you want money..) if not then it is pretty easy just send email

The difference here is 10 cents for using greeting card engine..then there will drop off for the people who sign up for newsletter..then drop off in terms of maintaining+monitoring the newsletter and the final small conversion ratio in terms of newsletter subscriber signing up for the offer..because the $3 was per sign up..I am actually curious about math..because say there are 1 million subscribers and 1% of they sign up as user for VC funded company's offering then it is just 30k in revenue.. and 1% is not low in the given scenario (a reason most of the newsletters don't host ads is the returns are very low)..I want to learn more how can the returns were much higher in this scenario..unless the users were more like bzzagent where they are going to get something in return and actively monitoring the newsletter to sign up and get some cash incentive.. similar to what bzzagent does or subvertandprofit/usocial etc people do for gaming social media sites

i know it is for all of you to downvote - but no fixed income, 2 houses, credit card debts, looking for investment , ppl find it inspirational...

i just don't feel like filing taxes this year

careful..in getting carried away by this advice though..unless your product targets large enough market you would not get opportunity to experiment/fail and succeed so yes start the inferno by targeting small niche but don't be esoteric unless you are going to get premium for being exclusive..

I agree..what will be useful is long thoughtful analysis, case studies around such points that expose nuances of decision making and evolution of ideas/business models and not copycat lists which assume there is some sort of formula in the start up success..

This analysis is fair from a VC's point of view but incomplete.. not to reuse political slogans but there are really 2 Americas.. there are very fundamental problems faced by millions of people like lack of health care, education, and jobs (jobs people can do with their skills and culture) and then there are problems in terms of "top-line" growth.. In terms business opportunities and the "top-line" growth stories, they are going to come back in very short time and those stories do not necessarily need this "creative destruction" but just innovation and speculative greed in fields such as utilities/energy, commerce, and computing. The main problem here is - this destruction is going to push behind great many people more and more and these people are not not going to be part of next growth cycle and many of them were already not part of it for last many years (but people ignored assuming America is great.and all Americans are in great shape.. the problem is going to be even more severe now).. This destruction can be called "creative" only if it creates new business opportunities as well as social uplifting.. it is not going to be the case as there are going to be huge social issues through this destruction so we need to consider the whole picture

no denial about speculative bubble but with abysmal savings, lack of educational resources, and near certain evaporation of low skilled jobs not sure - when it bounces back to what level it can go and how sustainable bounce back will be.. fundamental problems must be acknowledged and tackled..