Dave, And as a side issue, do Google know you're using one of their android wall papers as your website?
Al. Al Sutton wrote: > As for your assertian I have never been an entrepreneur I think this > kind of shows how misguided you may be because you have made an > assumption which shows little in the way of research and does not > reflect reality. > > To fill you in; I'm co-founder of a (reasonably successful) company > which produces a piece of software which is not in the mobile space and > has been sold around the world to customers including HSBC, Fujitsu, > Unisys, Nike, Red Bull, and several other global companies (as well as > several which only have a local presence in their own country). In my > time been involved with startups (who you probably haven't heard of) and > global companies (such as Reuters, JP Morgan Chase Manhattan, and Cable > and Wireless who you probably have heard of), so please don't confuse my > comments with someone who has never see a tax return, doesn't understand > the reposibilities of a shareholder, and has never set up a company. > > Given your experience my concern would be; "Why aren't you covering the > startup costs yourself?", I'm not sure what you mean by saying you've > been an entrepreneur four times, to be being an entrepreneur is a state > of mind, you don't sit there and say "Hey, look, I was an entrepreneur > yesterday, better add that to the tally", you either are one or your > aren't. If you mean you've started four companies my question would be > "why?", did you get bored an move on? (in which case why would be get > involved with you?), or did the businesses fail? (which, after one or > two failures you could still be learning, but after four it kind of > indicates your not understanding your mistakes). > > So my main question to you would be this; Given that you've "been an > entrepreneur", you have years of experience, and you are going to be > vetting those who wish to join, why do you expect others to fund the > startup costs of your idea as opposed to you funding the start-up costs > and accept it as an investment into potential future earnings from the LLC? > > Al. > > AdroitAndroid wrote: > >> Mark makes some good comments to which I will reply. Al seems to just >> want to cast aspersions (maybe because he feels his own ventures >> threatened?). However, I will respond to each in turn. >> >> Al, you have clearly never been an entrepreneur. Businesses have >> start-up costs for which the founders contribute cash to cover. This >> is the point of equity: the founders provide the entity with start-up >> funds (capital) in return for equity (a secondary claim on the assets >> of the firm). I have been in software development for decades as >> well, and been an entrepreneur four times. In no case have I ever >> seen a start-up begin with the founders not putting up some of their >> own money. Confidence in skill is not the issue. Members will not be >> accepted if we do not think they can produce high quality products or >> act as contributing members of the organization. As far as educating >> the members on the legal and fiduciary responsibilities of being a >> member of an LLC, I intend to give a basic education, but leave it up >> to the individual to take responsibility for him/herself. Yes, there >> are other Android resources out there, but the idea here is that we >> will be a cohesive team, developing a proprietary set of code which >> the entire team will understand and not have to explain to some >> outside person for help. >> >> Mark, thank you for your well-reasoned post. What I am proposing is >> similar to a co-op idea... but you're right, it's for profit. The >> difference is that the founding developers, who I am recruiting via >> this thread, will be the ones to share in that profit. I should not >> have used the term "founders" when I referred to myself and my >> associates who are trying to lead the effort to organize this, because >> everyone who gets involved now will be a founder and owner. Everyone >> will share equally. Let me repeat that... EVERYONE WILL SHARE >> EQUALLY. My earlier use of the "founders" term was misleading and I >> apologize. Anyone that joins now WILL be a founder. Does this >> satisfy your concerns? >> >> >> On Oct 18, 5:01 am, Mark Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> Replying to OP via Al's post to keep this on -discuss: >>> >>> >>> >>>> AdroitAndroid wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> The application fee was meant to provide the LLC with startup cash, >>>>> >>>>> >>> If you were proposing a sellers cooperative (e.g., Ocean Spray for >>> cranberries), I doubt anyone would be complaining. That's because co-ops >>> have specific structures and laws. Moreover, they are not-for-profits >>> themselves, meaning they cannot hold onto much in the way of retained >>> earnings and profits from sales must flow out to the owners. >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Note that AdroitAndroid is not an agency. You won't just be talent >>>>> farmed out for corporate profit. You will be AN OWNER who SHARES in >>>>> the profit. >>>>> >>>>> >>> Usually, when a startup starts up, it recruits a set of founders, who >>> then jointly decide things like business structure, ownership >>> percentages, rough-cut plans for profit distribution, and the like. In >>> your case, it sounds like you're dictating terms to some set of limited >>> partners, employees, or contractors. >>> >>> If you want to create a for-profit LLC, that is fine and is highly >>> commendable. I own one myself, and in the past have owned another >>> outright and been a founding partner in a third. However, you will get >>> less skepticism if you treat this like a normal startup and recruit in >>> founders, rather than whatever you consider this second tier of >>> participants. >>> >>> >>> >>>>> The founders of this organization are experienced technologists, >>>>> entrepreneurs, and management consultants who have strong professional >>>>> credentials and who can provide professional references for anyone who >>>>> has doubts about credibility. >>>>> >>>>> >>> IMHO, a virtual corporation of the type you describe should have zero >>> non-founders. That's zero, zilch, zippo, bupkes. The founders may have >>> varied backgrounds, or they may all do the same thing (e.g., >>> programming) and plan to contract out everything else, but they're all >>> roughly equals. >>> >>> I don't get the sense that's what you're doing. It feels like there is a >>> caste of founders and a caste of workers, where the caste of founders >>> has already been determined. >>> >>> Again, if you want to create a virtual corporation, that's perfectly >>> fine. But you will get less skepticism if you come across like a peer >>> humbly recruiting other peers. >>> >>> -- >>> Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)http://commonsware.com >>> >>> Android Training on the Ranch! -- Mar 16-20, >>> 2009http://www.bignerdranch.com/schedule.shtml >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
