amobilebiz

Angelsoft has two business models. One is where they charge entreprenuers to essentially pitch their angel members. The second is they provide a platform for angels and even some VCs to automate their application process. With this model the process is free to the entreprenuer and the angel or VC covers the cost.

While I believe the first model is useless money spent, I do believe the second model is much better and entreprenuers should not avoid filling out an angel groups investment application based solely on the fact they use Angelsoft to process the application. I have utilized the process myself and while I did not get funding from (I did get face-to-face meetings though) the angel groups I submitted to I found the application process easy and organized. I am familiar with several groups that utilize the Angelsoft platform and all are very reputable.

Long story short, blindly sending your business plan to just about ANY investment group (excluding YC and similar models) is not going to get you anywhere. Introductions and networking are the only true way of having a chance at any investment. I can think of other things to spend the $250 on than a membership with Angelsoft. On the other hand, if you have interest in a specific angel group or VC and they point you to Angelsoft to submit your business plan, etc... know that (a) it is free for you; and (b) that Angelsoft is a legitimate platform for submitting your application.

Note that I have no affiliation with Angelsoft other than I have utilized their platform to submit to several VCs.

Funny, the company making this software is incorporated. So much for eating your own dogfood.

No offense to the poster asking for feedback, but WOW this has to be one of the best, and most honest, reviews I have seen in a LONG time. I think many times when people post looking for feedback not everyone is as frank and honest about the website, app, or business model. This only ends up hurting the poster in the long run as they are given false hope about the possibility of success.

Maybe this game IS the next big hit, but without honest feedback like this the poster will never be able to take it to that level.

To the poster, the best advice I have (since this comment hit pretty much everything I was going to say) is never get discouraged by any feedback (good or bad) you receive and take the bad feedback as the best feedback and driving force behind making your app/website/business all that much better. I can't say if you will succeed or not (some apps I thought would never make it went on to make millions and others I thought were a sure thing went on to fail), success is what you make of it and if you are willing to take the advice and feedback gained from HN your chances will only increase.

I wish you the best of luck!

Good point, I didn't even think of that and it is true. One option would be to add a CNAME entry for the www portion on the subdomain. That way if someone did it would route correctly.

I couldn't agree with you more. There was a comment posted on the blog about why they didn't go with charge.37signals.com instead. I would think this would be better since it contains the real domain. I too am curious why they didn't use the subdomain route.

While the theory of your comment makes complete sense to me, I do have a problem with French (and no offense to the French people here) companies getting my tax dollars. Last I checked (and I could be wrong) Aerospatiale-Dassault was a French company. If U.S. companies are going to be buying corporate jets with my tax dollars I would much rather they buy them from U.S. companies.

yes, that is definitely a downside when you don't or are unable to take advantage of the perks. That is where negotiating your salary comes into play though. If you know that you are not going to be staying for dinner then negotiate up for that extra $2000-3000 to get it back.

i feel the same way about taxes though. I pay them and half the things they go to I never use. I wish I could negotiate them with them government better :)

Everything I read here I can relate to with big companies. It seems once companies reach that 1000 employee mark the culture changes drastically. I can also relate to how going from a private to public company can impact employee "life". Not that money is necessarily tight or the company can not afford the "perks" they once gave to employees as a private company, but with being public comes added scrutiny and greater sense of needing to be responsible with spending. The average Joe investor does not want to hear that employees are enjoying free meals when his stock drops $1.00.

On the other hand though, from reading these emails it seems most of these people went to work at Google with a preconceived notion that it was going to be different and that somehow Google was going to be this theme park environment. As with any job at any company it is what you make of it. If you take a job solely because you think you are going to eat/drink free everyday, have daily live entertainment, and going to work is going to be fun then you are taking the job for the wrong reasons. Work should be fun, but you need to make it fun and not rely on the company or the culture to make it fun for you.

As for salaries, while I do not know exactly Google's salaries, I would be willing to bet that they are extremely competitive. I do know that a starting salary is most often highly negotiable and the people that tend to complain about receiving a low salary are the ones who go in expecting to be offered some godly amount right from the start. The other thing you have to weigh is the benefits or perks in relation to the salary. For example, if you get to eat lunch and dinner free every day at the office then you are saving around $10-20 a day in food. That adds up to over $200 a month or probably around $3000 a year in extra compensation you are receiving. Just like the one person did comparing the job at Google to buying a luxury car with all the fancy options and extra cup holders, you have to compare the salary plus perks to your current salary with no perks.

I have been there, not with Google, but with a startup. I went from government contracting, to a small startup as a very early employee, and then to Microsoft, and back to startup life. I can say that once you are bit by startup life it is tough to move to a big company like Google or Microsoft and be truly happy. The culture is not the same and to expect it to be is ridiculous. That is why I am back in startup life now. It is fun, fast, and everyday is a new adventure.

You don't have to trick it in Excel 2003. If you have 10 rows (i.e. c1 thru c10) and in c11 you have the sum if you right click on row 11 and insert row it will insert a row above 11 and update your formula for you in c11 to include the new row.

Same problem here. Works in Firefox, but not IE7. After you answer the first question on the quiz I get a javascript error on the next page.

Couldn't have said it any better. Companies like Digg & Facebook, it is my belief, don't even have IPO even on their radar.

He is 100% right when he says that "building a product and building a business around a product are two very different things". This is the problem that Web 2.0 companies realize after they start and gain critical mass. Sustaining that growth rate costs significant capital regardless of what open-source technologies or inexpensive hosting platforms you build upon.

The real problem, in my eyes, is that VCs and other investors see the critical mass first and dump loads of cash into these startups without demanding a viable revenue model and I don't mean relying entirely on AdSense revenue. While Adsense can be a good starting point to generating some revenue it should not be looked upon as a means to an end.

The problem with Web 2.0 companies is that they all have one underlying theme in their business plans. Gain traction, obtain substantial outside investment, and then move on to something else by selling out to the highest bidder.

While I do believe that companies like Digg and Facebook could generate substantial revenues, what is their motivation right now to do so? Investors continue to dump money into them and investors are fighting to own a piece of their "empires" without viable revenues so why deviate from that course. Right now they are only looking to grow that critical mass further and eventually look for the highest bidder that will move the founders to the next project.

Web 1.0 companies (or pre-bubble burst companies) saw IPOs as a viable means to an end. They were focused on generating revenues as large revenues at the time equaled successful IPOs.

You can download the Alpha 1.4 version of Firebug for Firefox 3.1 support.

Everyone thinks that an SBA loan is "easier" to get or that any business can go right out and get one. That is far from the case. The process of getting an SBA loan is the same with a standard bank loan, except you now have an added layer with the SBA application. You first must find a bank that is an authorized SBA lender (not every bank is, but all big banks are). You will then go through the bank's standard screening process (i.e. credit check, biz plan review, collateral) and simulataneously have your application submitted to the SBA for approval. If both the bank and the SBA approve your loan you get your money from the bank. Also, the bank may approve your loan contingent on the SBA approval.

SBA loans do require collateral (i.e. home, equipment, etc...). That is why typically businesses use them to finance equipment or buildings. The SBA loans, and bank loans for that matter, are not geared towards "web startups". You will have a much easier time convincing your friends and family to lend you a few thousand for the next great internet company then you will have convincing a bank manager.

The above is just my two cents, I have never applied for or received a SBA loan. I have, however, considered getting one a few years back. I had a lengthy discussion with my bank manager and decided after it was not worth the hassle. I just begged friends and family instead and the turnaround time was much quicker.