dangrsmind
It is clearly a biased sample, listing only "successful" companies but not the much larger set of unsuccessful ones. The "exception" of Excite thrown in with 6 founders, IMO makes the author's intentions (conscious or unconscious) clear since one would expect some argument about whether Excite was really a success in the end.
Then there is the question of what constitutes a founder. This isn't always so easy to define. How many people founded IBM?
Despite Thomas Watson being listed as the "founder" of IBM, it is hard to even answer this question since IBM was formed out of the merger of three companies before it was even called IBM. (http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-ibm)
Several responders pointed out correctly that the number of potential communications channels rises as the number of founders increases. And while that's clearly true, it is also true that more founders means more mouths to feed early in the company's development. And to run any business you need to learn to manage communication amongst your team.
Finally, one has to be careful not to confuse correlation with causation. Just because Microsoft was founded by two people, doesn't mean that was the primary reason for their success. It might also have had something to do with who the two people were after all. ;)
Your point about Google raises one of the obvious questions about this company... if Google is doing leading edge research in this field it seems unlikely they need to buy a "video search destination" site employing lesser technologies, that is unless it gets really really big (i.e. YouTube). They might be interested in some deep technology, but my impression from the reading I've done and the links you've posted is that Blinkx is using standard well known techniques to achieve their results.
FWIW: I was applying Markov modeling to areas such as mission planning and modeling integrated air defense networks back almost twenty years ago now. We didn't call them HMMs, but there were some very similar ideas employed.
The first question I'd have is how fast they can parse video. The second is how much it costs to do it.
It seems you would have to be able to do recognition much faster than real-time for a realistic web video search capability (see for example http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=599600) and you would certainly need a lot of hardware to do this at scale for millions of video clips.
See also: http://www.newmediamusings.com/blog/2005/09/blinkx_a_citize.html
Recently I've been asked to sign NDAs as part of employment interviews. This seems to have almost become standard practice now. I don't really think this is a great idea, and I often won't take an interview that requires an NDA. But sometimes if I am certain that I won't be developing my own ideas in the field I'll sign one. Inevitably I find that these employment related NDAs are the most frivolous, silly, and irrelevant ones I sign. YMMV.
The company to be acquired also wants to have an NDA in this case since in the event that the acquisition does not proceed you don't want your negotiating position revealed to other potential acquirers before you have chance to even negotiate with them.
-- Buddhist saying
Not just because you might lose your investment, but because by using your own money you are creating a situation of immense pressure. The risk of losing your home might lead one to make some bad decisions regarding the business. You have o be very careful here.
My second self funded company eventually did take about $100,000 in angel money. But we started with only $50,000 of the two founders own money and we operated the business for four years with no other investment. We eventually sold it to a public software company for $2 million dollars. This might seem like a pretty decent investment, but at the time (mid 90s) it failed to attract the buzz that seems to feed VC investments.
It also depends on how much capital you really need. Typically entrepreneurs underestimate this, but of course it is also possible to fool yourself the other way. You have to be very realistic about this to make the right decisions. My current venture requires us to installhardware in our customers' facilities, so it is somewhat capital intensive. Only someone who was very wealthy could self fund such an enterprise.
In the end VC money spends the same as any other money, so deciding where you get your funds should be a business decision similar to deciding who to hire or what product to develop. You should interview your investors as they interview you. But few entrepreneurs do this. They act desperate, and this often becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
On another note, in my experience, entrepreneurs shouldn't expect most VCs to deliver anything more than money. Of course they all tell you about the benefits of their strategic connections and so on, but in my experience it is very rare that these bear fruit. One exception would be a venture fund targeting the specific industry you are developing your product for. These funds often do have real valuable connections to bring to bear and can help in ways that vanilla VCs can't.
Not just because you might lose your investment, but because by using your own money you are creating a situation of immense pressure. The risk of losing your home might lead one to make some bad decisions regarding the business. You have o be very careful here.
My second self funded company eventually did take about $100,000 in angel money. But we started with only $50,000 of the two founders own money and we operated the business for four years with no other investment. We eventually sold it to a public software company for $2 million dollars. This might seem like a pretty decent investment, but at the time (mid 90s) it failed to attract the buzz that seems to feed VC investments.
It also depends on how much capital you really need. Typically entrepreneurs underestimate this, but of course it is also possible to fool yourself the other way. You have to be very realistic about this to make the right decisions. My current venture requires us to installhardware in our customers' facilities, so it is somewhat capital intensive. Only someone who was very wealthy could self fund such an enterprise.
In the end VC money spends the same as any other money, so deciding where you get your funds should be a business decision similar to deciding who to hire or what product to develop. You should interview your investors as they interview you. But few entrepreneurs do this. They act desperate, and this often becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
On another note, in my experience, entrepreneurs shouldn't expect most VCs to deliver anything more than money. Of course they all tell you about the benefits of their strategic connections and so on, but in my experience it is very rare that these bear fruit. One exception would be a venture fund targeting the specific industry you are developing your product for. These funds often do have real valuable connections to bring to bear and can help in ways that vanilla VCs can't.