Comments on “Hey asshole investors, look familiar?”http://sixsites.com/posts/hey-asshole-investors-look-familiar/feed/2009-05-29T07:19:47-07:00ChyrpHey asshole investors, look familiar?tag:sixsites.com,2009-05-28:/id/59//comment_212009-05-28T21:40:01-07:002009-05-28T21:40:01-07:00kstewart
<p>Amen, brother. Amen. Signal is the product I want and think still has a place, but you’re absolutely right that investors would be absolutely terrified now trying to fund a product that would be squarely in Google’s crosshairs (even though Google has been first to market with several products that a smaller, nimbler competitor has displaced. Blogger vs. Wordpress, anyone?)</p>
<p>This is why I am a firm believer in bootstrapping wherever possible.</p> Hey asshole investors, look familiar?tag:sixsites.com,2009-05-29:/id/59//comment_222009-05-29T07:19:47-07:002009-05-29T07:19:47-07:00brianhttp://sixsites.com
<p>Agreed. There needs to be a better way for small agile firms to be given the opportunity to innovate and develop products like Signal. </p>
<p>The current landscape of the web doesn’t do a good job of fostering game changing ideas. While I love the bootstrap too, big ideas require time to invest in, which is hard to get when you have to worry about who is paying your bills this month. </p>
<p>As web products become more commoditized, the ability to create a truly revolutionary (as opposed to evolutionary) product from your garage is getting harder, not easier. </p>
<p>This is the problem we had with Signal. We needed a room to fail. To riff on new ideas without the fear of running out of runway. That is hard to do on the bootstrap.</p>
<p>There has to be a middle ground between the pure bootstrap and dealing with investors who are too slow and you end up spending most your time explaining your idea.</p>