News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Startup to IPO: Part 2: Obstacles by tptacek on Wednesday July 15, 2009 @11:01AM (#705785)
We'd be out of business now if we had gotten VC in 2005. From the VC-funded companies I've been in before, getting VC seems like getting shot out of a cannon. There are no course corrections that don't involve big splotches of blood and viscera. You better be aimed correctly.

We didn't know enough in '05. We've watched 5 other companies launch the product we were planning to launch. One of them eventually took in over $80MM (!) in funding. The market hasn't panned out. We got to watch that all play out, see what worked and didn't work, and retool, all while building up a profitable line of business.

Just another reason, besides "it makes you work really hard", why not getting VC can be a win.

Re:Startup to IPO: Part 2: Obstacles by joannetse on Wednesday July 15, 2009 @11:18AM (#705822)
Thanks so much for sharing your experience. I wonder what your competitor did with that $80MM!
Re:Startup to IPO: Part 2: Obstacles by tptacek on Wednesday July 15, 2009 @12:42PM (#706001)
Presumably:

* Several million dollars in inventory

* A 20 region global direct sales team, likely each consisting of a 130k base account manager and 2 90k-100k SE's

* Several million dollars a year in "marketing", including 20-50k/mo in PR firms (note: we got more press hits over the last 4 years than they did), 100k+ in Gartner subscriptions, magazine ads, and 4-5 $100k+ conference visits a year.

* 4-5 120k+ overhead head count for middle management, like a VP/Marketing, Director/Marketing, and Sr Mgr/Marketing, or 3 layers of engineering management.

* A ridiculously outsized engineering department with 1:1 or worse dev/QA.

I'm sure I'm missing some other ludicrous VC-funded-company expense than a 50+MM funded company goes through (I've been through that firsthand), but all I'll say here is, there's nothing I think they spent that money on that I want for my company now.