I'd like to hear the responses to this since I am in a similar position. I was accepted to a startup accelerator at UPenn and have been working full-time the past 8 weeks both learning to code and building the application. Before that, I was working part-time for about 2 months while holding a job.
Lately, I've been in a massive rut and have serious doubts seeing if I have what it takes to make my startup succeed. It is mostly due to the technical side since I'm just graduating a bootcamp but I feel my energy and drive waining.
I can agree somewhat that episode 2 did not have that special something.
An alternative idea I have is that many of use forget what it is like to watch one episode every week instead of getting the whole season at one time. It is painful actually and you really dissect each episode more.
Yeah this is a strange fascination and yeah I can see why they want to add diversity to a show that would naturally not have much.
I must admit Richard is rather frustrating at times. I know I should root for him but man as a leader I hope he really grows. Although I suppose you could see that a little as the episode ended.
The idea of having Big Head on the inside also seems an interesting plot line to me.
As a recent graduate of a Rails bootcamp, I am excited to see what you guys cook up regarding Rails.
I also wanted to see, in the future, if you guys would be interested in making a Javascript track (Javascipt, NodeJS, AngualrJS, maybe even MeteorJS too). This is something that many people are also looking to dive into as am I.
I very much agree with Kevin here. I grew up in a very average neighborhood with low ambitions and never really challenged myself. In college, I got with the wrong people my freshman year and eventually lost my scholarship.
Being out of school and with a chip on my shoulder has led me to learning how to code, starting a startup, and being accepted into a top college accelerator despite not being in school. The people I am around now are KPCB fellows, former interns at top startups, and thoroughly ambitious. Without this environment, things would not be moving nearly as quickly.
Conversely, my brother went to a Math and Science academy and is now at an Ivy league school. The same Ivy League school I am now at as part of the accelerator program.
Like people attract like people. So if over time a person becomes a new person, why should they feel held down to the old people that they were once like? I know for me the friends I am making now are like me and they are pushing me to become better. Ultimately, that is what you really want in a friendship.
What he says is you should get to product/market fit. If you don't get there then whatever business plan you have will fail and so will you. When Aaron dilutes himself massively he does so to buy time to get to product/market fit. Only by dong so can he later turn on the growth engine and know that users will stay and love the product. A top VC knows that he can never trick a founder into making him a large exit. The founder just needs the "right" plan, not "his" plan.
Again startups are pass/fail. So what can he benefit if they fire you and bring some professional CEO who tanks the company? The truly big outcomes come from the founder who stays and does well (Apple, Google, Facebook, etc) That is why they stared Andreesen Horowitz http://www.bhorowitz.com/why_we_prefer_founding_ceos
I agree with the article that since startups are pass/fail, the founders must due whatever they have to do to succeed. Marc Andreesen says to even take that highly diluted fourth round to get to product/market fit and increase your chances of success. http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee204/ProductMarketFit.html
I think I speak for many that we like Aaron but don't know if Box can become that iconic enterprise software company that Aaron or others in the company would like us to believe.