Neo is hiring in all of its offices: San Fran, NYC, Singapore, Columbus, Cincinnati, Montevideo, Edinburgh - jobs@neo.com
We are always on the lookout for great software developers, designers and product managers.
Neo is a new kind of consultancy – one that blends the best of Lean and Agile Development practices. We work in small, cross-functional teams. We not only help clients build software the right way, we help make sure they’re building the right thing in the first place. At Neo, you’ll know that you’re helping to build things that really matter – tools and products that have been exposed to market validation at every stage.
We believe in constant learning and pushing the boundaries of our craft. We work reasonable, flexible hours. We use the best tools available, work in an open environment, send our people to conferences, and have a lot of fun.
In terms of technology, we work on a wide variety of languages and frameworks including Ruby on Rails, Objective C, Python, Node.js, Java, Angular, Ember and Backbone.
agreed. It is pretty silly. When one has no experience, one should be willing to do a little more research first and talk to a few more experienced folks. There are many sales & marketing driven software companies. Sometimes it works, sometimes it is a disaster. Personally, I think that the trick is usually about finding the right balance between business, design and engineering, not putting one on a pedestal above the rest.
No..you aren't talking about one specific time..or at least your article isn't. If that were the case than you'd be talking about why salespeople aren't STARTING companies rather than asking why they aren't RUNNING companies.
Without a talented engineering team, a product won't be able to change or adapt to customers changing needs and opinions.
Sure you can sell a product that isn't fully developed, and outsource your engineering but in all likelihood you're going to wind up with a clusterfuck of a codebase and so much technical debt that your customers aren't ever going to see anything more than the crappy first iteration of a product.
This is all just so silly. By your logic all that is important is that you have salespeople that can sell anything, including a crap product. Is that really how you want to drive a company? Salespeople would have an easier time selling a well engineered and functioning product no?
Agreed that copycatting and lame ideas are to be discouraged, but the author makes one fatal error in my mind: consumers and venture capitalists have the benefit of "portfolio" thinking. Entrepreneurs have all their eggs in one basket, and a finite amount of time to make things happen. So while being totally zany might indeed be good for the whole, I can pretty much guarantee that it will be terrible for 99% of the entrepreneurs.
I admit to finding the name a bit off-putting. There is an amazing low-fidelity, highly iterative, and agile-friendly sketching tool and it is called a real pencil. On gasp paper.
Not that I don't use digital tools too, but I am often surprised how rarely people go analog when it can be invaluable.
True but often you need to present your design in a more professional environment and throwing together a sample UI in a matter of minutes can come quite handy.
I think it is a silly article with a link bait headline. The author has taken his very narrow use cases and extrapolated it to all users. If he can replace dropbox with evernote then he is using dropbox in a very different way from me, not to mention that his implicit message seems to be that all operating systems are going to become Apple-owned, which is silly. Yes, icloud might hurt dropbox but that's a far cry from a death knell.
The article basically says "I don't pay for dropbox, therefore it will fail." The backup for this is "Dropbox is a feature, not a product." And "other companies that I have made this statement about have failed."
My guess is that this is not necessarily the opinion of the writer, he was just given the task of writing a short article with a contrarian view on Dropbox.
It depends on stage and context of product. In the earliest days, I think whoever owns "customer development" should also own the UX. It doesn't need to be beautiful, just good enough (that's where context of product comes in -- it defines "good enough" -- a product for engineers will have different requirements than one for grandparents).
The trouble with using free time from a friend is 1. by being free, it is harder to give blunt feedback; 2. by being a favor, you are beholden to their schedule, and can they really keep up with your pace of iteration and learning based on customer development? It can put strain on friendships.
So in the earliest days I say try to DIY unless you really don't have a design bone in your body. Use paper and Balsamiq to sketch, and examine what you like and dislike of comparable products.
You can always hire a professional designer later to come in and help once you feel confident that you are close to the right product for the right customer.
If you want to incorporate, I would get a startup-savvy lawyer in your area and just use their boilerplate restricted stock and IP agreements for you and your co-founders.
If you aren't ready to incorporate, then just write the terms everyone has agreed to in plain, unambiguous English, and have everyone sign it and give everyone a copy. Note the equity splits, the agreed-upon vesting schedule (standard seems to be 4 year vesting, first 25% after 1 year, then monthly after that, with double-trigger acceleration upon acquisition), what everyone is agreeing to for the IP, and any other rules you might be coming up with for the business.
This just keeps everyone on the same page right from the get-go, and prevents revisionist history later. However, once you get serious, I would go ahead and incorporate.
To break fre, the way i would recommend is to save up enough money that you have a reasonable runway to pick one startup idea and pursue/iterate it intensely. Set a goal for how much money that is and save as rigorously as you can. During this time of earning money, you can at least do some customer development around your ideas. And my advice is that unless your consulting and your product are really tightly tied together, you are better off keeping them entirely separate from a legal perspective. If one or both start growing, keeping them together can get really messy. Obviously there are are exceptions to that.
Well I disagree that it is harder than finding a soul-mate, but I do agree it is tricky, and I do agree that you shouldn't partner up with someone you are not feeling great about. I actually wrote that you shouldn't wait to start your business, so we're in agreement fmora, but there are good reasons why you should continue to seek a complementary partner and not be overly stingy in order to bring them on board. Obviously have vesting schedules and protect yourself in case it doesn't work out.
Your critique is totally fair. I agree that every situation is unique -- tried to say that in conclusion -- but I did want to take a strong stand especially for newer entrepreneurs trying to figure out their path. I've seen these pieces saying you don't need a co-founder, and haven't seen much recently saying, "wait a minute, hold up there."
I also tried to clarify twice that I'm talking about companies with a strong software component, where team is so essential. At the end of the day, everyone has to carve their own path, no arguments, but there are general points that can increase the odds in your favor and that's merely the warning I tried to give.
You are exactly right Giff. I didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing your post in general, it's just the whole discussion in general. I just finishing reading 3 posts this week on NY vs SF and then solo vs co. So this happened to be the post that I commented on :D.
I believe that if you happen to find a co-founder that truly works well with you, amazing things can happen. That is definitely the highest percentage way to go. I am a newer entrepreneur so I get what you are saying. But with very little connections and no real experience, it is much better to start as a solo guy (like you mentioned) and then hopefully find someone along the way.
Although, I still see no reason why those people can't be employees. It all depends on the type of leader that you are. Regardless, good post (and I love your list of lawyers, that's how I found mine, so I appreciate it).
Your strong stand made me feel better about going solo.
I mean, almost everybody agreed about 'you need a co-founder' until last week, and I was convinced about it. Your reactionary post made it look like the argument had weakness and needed to be defended.
I think that in my case, it's just a matter of 'it should happen in a natural way': let's work, if I need a co-founder, it should appear on the way, if I don't, it will not appear.
We are always on the lookout for great software developers, designers and product managers.
Neo is a new kind of consultancy – one that blends the best of Lean and Agile Development practices. We work in small, cross-functional teams. We not only help clients build software the right way, we help make sure they’re building the right thing in the first place. At Neo, you’ll know that you’re helping to build things that really matter – tools and products that have been exposed to market validation at every stage.
We believe in constant learning and pushing the boundaries of our craft. We work reasonable, flexible hours. We use the best tools available, work in an open environment, send our people to conferences, and have a lot of fun.
In terms of technology, we work on a wide variety of languages and frameworks including Ruby on Rails, Objective C, Python, Node.js, Java, Angular, Ember and Backbone.
http://www.neo.com