lol... What you see as petty others (such as myself) see as due diligence.
It's extremely important to know why a person left previous businesses before getting involved with them because it gives you a good idea of what they'll be like when you're in business with them. Thats why it's a question asked everywhere from job interviews to VC meetings, and the more cagey someone is about offering the information, the more concerned I get that they have something to hide. The reason you would give ownership to the others for nothing is because you controll whos joining and what rules their joining under. I have never joined a start-up where they said "we'll interview you, but chips some money before you join us will you" (and yes, in most of them I was given share options which gave me part ownership of the company). The value people add to your company comes from their long term efforts, not just how much they stump up just to be in your club. It's good to see you're properly attributing the source. I hadn't scrolled down far enough to see it, so I apologise. Is there any reason why you don't have more information about your idea on your site? Al. AdroitAndroid wrote: > Al, > > Wow... you're really getting petty about this. Yes, I've started 4 > companies. Quite frankly, it's none of your business why I left > them. I will gladly share that information with those who are > considering partnering with me, but you, sir, are looking for ways to > further publicly attack my character and I won't allow you. > > To answer your question about why I don't front the start-up costs > myself, well, I am... I am fronting my portion as will every founder > who joins me. Why would I give away ownership to others for nothing? > If I do that, they may as well be employees, not co-owners, which > defeats the entire purpose of this idea. > > Google does not know that I am using their image... and they don't > need to. It's licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 > License. You'll see that I give the proper attribution at the bottom > of the page. If you like, you can educate yourself on the topic here: > http://code.google.com/policies.html. > > > > On Oct 18, 1:36 pm, Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
