Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="humble minion" data-source="post: 8973450" data-attributes="member: 5948">The way these things usually work is that a venture capitalist shovels a vast amount of money upfront at a fast-talker with a good sales pitch, and then the talker can spend that money trying to build an actual tech base and business out of it.&nbsp; It's then a race, to see if the money runs out before the tech team can develop something that, even if it doesn't make money yet, is convincing enough that the venture capitalist or other investors will chip in more to finish it off.&nbsp; There is no theoretical limit to this cycle.&nbsp; Twitter grew huge without being profitable based on this very dynamic.But regardless, you have to get your tech base sorted before you can show anyone anything at all.&nbsp; There's massive upfront costs in developing something like this.&nbsp; Any big tech project is a money pit for years.&nbsp; You have to get SOMETHING functioning nice and early so investors have something cool to look at (I suspect that's why these people had their pretty pictures ready to go years ago when there seemed to be very little else), but all the finicky boring networking and scaling and security and management tooling and error handling and deployment/integration pipeline stuff is where all the real time and effort goes.&nbsp; And until that foundation is working, you've got nothing you can sell to anyone.I'm sure the investors have other irons in the fire.&nbsp; Senior management might too.&nbsp; but I have no problems at all believing that the technical people are 100% focused on this (and are probably carrying a very sizeable workload in the process)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="humble minion, post: 8973450, member: 5948"] The way these things usually work is that a venture capitalist shovels a vast amount of money upfront at a fast-talker with a good sales pitch, and then the talker can spend that money trying to build an actual tech base and business out of it. It's then a race, to see if the money runs out before the tech team can develop something that, even if it doesn't make money yet, is convincing enough that the venture capitalist or other investors will chip in more to finish it off. There is no theoretical limit to this cycle. Twitter grew huge without being profitable based on this very dynamic. But regardless, you have to get your tech base sorted before you can show anyone anything at all. There's massive upfront costs in developing something like this. Any big tech project is a money pit for years. You have to get SOMETHING functioning nice and early so investors have something cool to look at (I suspect that's why these people had their pretty pictures ready to go years ago when there seemed to be very little else), but all the finicky boring networking and scaling and security and management tooling and error handling and deployment/integration pipeline stuff is where all the real time and effort goes. And until that foundation is working, you've got nothing you can sell to anyone. I'm sure the investors have other irons in the fire. Senior management might too. but I have no problems at all believing that the technical people are 100% focused on this (and are probably carrying a very sizeable workload in the process) [/QUOTE]

Verification