baldajan

I skimmed it ;) But I did looked how much they raised on CrunchBase, seemed to be about equal of the sales price.

you're right that my math is wrong in regards to sale_price < real_company_worth - it should have been the other way around... (real_company_worth < sale_price)... I guess I needed more coffee...

max is correct though (whichever value is highest, that sets the base price).

Have you ever been part of a company sale before or been at a private meetings/meetups where founders talk about how they sold their business? I've never sold a company, but I've talked privately with many that have (and have raised considerable sums).

Very common that the baseline is the amount of money raised - it's why sometimes companies die and not get sold. Other times, companies will use amount of money raised as leverage to increase the final sale price (based on investor expected returns).

Money raised plays a huge factor in regards to sales price, or if a sale occurs at all.

From a pedantic perspective, maybe... another way to put it:

    real_company_worth = sum(valueOf(technology), valueOf(people), valueOf(assets))
    sale_price = max(total_money_raised_owed, real_company_worth)

    if sale_price == total_money_raised_owed {
        sale_price < real_company_worth // likely, since rarely total_money_raised_owed == real_company_worth
    }

Better?

The $80 million price tag wouldn't have been achieved if they hadn't raised $80 million first. When an acquisition sells at the same price as money raised, good sign the company isn't worth that much - it's just the minimum $ amount that would allow the Board to sign off on it.

Sometimes that minimum is too high compared to the company value and so no sale happens and the company just dies.

I'm not sure if you ever used StoreKit or their subscription API... its so full of holes and poor documentation and poor implementation that it's a nightmare to work with (particularly subscriptions). Don't believe me? There's a YC startup raising millions of dollars dedicated to solving the subscription implementation problems Apple has created...

"purchasing mechanisms" is what's interesting... it's not just information.

Epic is trying to get this done. But the companies are afraid that could trigger anti-trust cases against them. It’s complicated - but they’re watching and I believe big tech has grown tired of Apple’s power.

That’s the problem with paid apps... but I also believe now it’s a problem with devs not validating the app receipt to check for refunds and prevent access.

For in-app purchases, up until a few years ago, users would always have access to them (even after a refund) then it followed the same rules as paid apps - access always maintain but one couldn’t restore.

Subscriptions however are unique as a server would constantly check the receipt from Apple, which would show a refund flag, so you could block access. Now they even send you a push notification to your server to indicate a refund.

With iOS 14, in-app purchases will get a “notification” when a user receives a refund on device (with IAP encompassing subscriptions).

So it’s getting better. Not perfect. But better.

Majority of people use Chrome. So it’s a very valid tip regardless of what browser I use.

Just a tip: always have your domain start with the brand name. “Get___” “try___” “by___” etc are terrible because when a user is searching to quickly go to your domain, they’ll type your brand name first (as that’s what will come to mind).

In this case “r”, but your site won’t be listed as a quick suggestion cause the domain starts with “g”.

I’d suggest “reployapp” or “reployenv” or something where brand followed by a word/descriptor.

And the other founder, who is the CEO, absolutely hates Trump...

I know them.

Maybe lavish is a bit of hyperbole. And after their 15M series A, I can assume they had competitive salaries given their life decisions (modest homes and cars).

"able to maintain their own lifestyles using grants from the Canadian government" - that's absolutely false. North/Thalmic was flush with cash for a long time, and though their Myo didn't sell "well" - it still brought in millions.

Not denying the founders had lavish lifestyles, but they were running a company that raised 15M series A, and 120M series B - so that's honestly "expected". The grant I assume you're referencing was a 34M loan, which was to be paid out over time, and was recalled once North announced layoffs last year.

I won't defend their business decisions or argue they were a "promising startup" - I think they deserve the criticism. But I'd rather not throwout some false stories or accusations.