I’m starting an internet company and detailing the entire process(medium.com)
medium.com
I’m starting an internet company and detailing the entire process
https://medium.com/@johnomarkid/im-starting-an-internet-company-and-detailing-the-entire-process-9a9c23f7dc24
33 comments
Never before in the history of the Internetz
There is an enterprise software company named powwow as well. You might run into issues with your name.
Great idea but you may want to rethink the name. PowWowNow is a well know (at least in the U.K.) conference call provider. May prove a big issue for you since you're in a similar field. Looking forward to the weekly updates.
I'm always baffled by the naivity of people when deciding on company names. The challenge is not to spend dollars on finding a new name that is as cool as possible, but the challenge is to find a name:
- that is not used in that context anywhere else, therefore
- free of potential legal liability towards other brands, and
- for which you can build up a brand over time.
How come otherwise competent engineers end up with these kinds of suboptimal startup/project names over and over again?
For Powwow you have other companies, all domains are taken, and you will have to fight wikipedia to rank for this term in any top spot. Same with otto, the car company. Otto is popular first name, name of one of the largest European pre-amazon retailers, etc.
Such a waste of money and time to start with a second-hand brand.
(sorry if this comes across as snarky, I really like the project.)
- that is not used in that context anywhere else, therefore
- free of potential legal liability towards other brands, and
- for which you can build up a brand over time.
How come otherwise competent engineers end up with these kinds of suboptimal startup/project names over and over again?
For Powwow you have other companies, all domains are taken, and you will have to fight wikipedia to rank for this term in any top spot. Same with otto, the car company. Otto is popular first name, name of one of the largest European pre-amazon retailers, etc.
Such a waste of money and time to start with a second-hand brand.
(sorry if this comes across as snarky, I really like the project.)
You used Otto as an example. It was acquired by Uber for $680M. Doesn't that mean company names might be less important than you think?
I purchased powwowjs.com (js because it's a javascript embedded app) for $40 after spending 15 minutes thinking about a name I liked. I'd rather spend my time and money building a product that is not yet validated. If the name needs to change, that's totally fine and a lot less time consuming than my current task at hand.
I purchased powwowjs.com (js because it's a javascript embedded app) for $40 after spending 15 minutes thinking about a name I liked. I'd rather spend my time and money building a product that is not yet validated. If the name needs to change, that's totally fine and a lot less time consuming than my current task at hand.
Otto is a huge corruption case right now, and I've read articles indicating that the whole otto vehicle was just set up to funnel IP out of Google into Uber. So the "exit" might've been constructed a bit.
Not criticizing the content of your project, but I think you make it harder for yourself than you needed to. Several avenues are blocked right from the start depending on name choice, and rebranding is really expensive.
Not criticizing the content of your project, but I think you make it harder for yourself than you needed to. Several avenues are blocked right from the start depending on name choice, and rebranding is really expensive.
Otto is a bad comparison for anyone because it was more of an intellectual trust sold to larger companies than a true startup. I agree that plenty of companies change their names though.
Thanks, didn't know that. If the name becomes a problem I am completely open to changing it.
[deleted]
Looking forward to the updates! Will you provide any technical information about the tech stack used, servers, scaling etc?
Yup, for sure. In the week 1 update I actually briefly talk about the stack. But future updates will go more in depth with things like db query profiles. http://johnomar.com/powwow-progress-week-1/
You might have to fight John McAfee for the name ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowWow_(chat_program)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowWow_(chat_program)
> We want to try new ways to motivate employees that don’t revolve around stock options with unknown value.
How about salaries?
How about salaries?
Industry level salaries are important. In addition to that, how do you create an environment that people want to work in for the next 10 years? I think remote work is a big incentive. Maybe capping work hours at 40/week. That makes people happy. Maybe profit sharing. There are incentives that are more tangible than stock options.
Cap on personal income as a ratio of number of employees (so you don't end up with Wal-Mart-like policies where the bulk of your "employees" make minimum wage and require government assistance just to live, while people at the top make millions) would be great.
Combine that being profitable (after base salaries) and fair profit sharing (eg, across all employees and contractors) and you will have people flocking to your company in droves.
Combine that being profitable (after base salaries) and fair profit sharing (eg, across all employees and contractors) and you will have people flocking to your company in droves.
Why would contractors get profit sharing? They're already paid higher rates after accounting for benefits, risks, and taxes. If you undervalue yourself as a software dev contractor and bill 25-30 hours a week you can make a quarter million dollars a year gross.
I get where you're going with the WM example, and that's a fair one, but probably not comparable to a tech company like this. Nobody is going to be working for $10/hr or less unless it's fair for their standard of living. Likewise, industry level pay is important and if a good CFO commands $2 million a year but you can only offer $1.1 because you have a bunch of people making $50k, you're not going to get a good CFO, or your hiring pool is going to be artificially limited to those who don't need or care about the money.
I get where you're going with the WM example, and that's a fair one, but probably not comparable to a tech company like this. Nobody is going to be working for $10/hr or less unless it's fair for their standard of living. Likewise, industry level pay is important and if a good CFO commands $2 million a year but you can only offer $1.1 because you have a bunch of people making $50k, you're not going to get a good CFO, or your hiring pool is going to be artificially limited to those who don't need or care about the money.
I would consider contract jobs only because of more pay. But the lack of stability is a concern.
Profit sharing with contractors because... imagine Uber where drivers are poorly paid contractors while Uber reaps silly amounts of profits.
I fully understand that people can dictate what price they want. But that doesn't make that price fair, does it? Show a reason that $2M is necessitated instead of... say... $250K base salary and bonuses "up to" $2M based on performance. So if the company hires you and you don't bring profits (remember, profits are shared now) in line with whatever's necessary to pay you that $2M, then are you really worth your $2M asking price?
Profit sharing with contractors because... imagine Uber where drivers are poorly paid contractors while Uber reaps silly amounts of profits.
I fully understand that people can dictate what price they want. But that doesn't make that price fair, does it? Show a reason that $2M is necessitated instead of... say... $250K base salary and bonuses "up to" $2M based on performance. So if the company hires you and you don't bring profits (remember, profits are shared now) in line with whatever's necessary to pay you that $2M, then are you really worth your $2M asking price?
Living wages, normal schedules, plenty of vacation time, and a certain degree of autonomy would go a long way. It amazes me how few companies offer many of those things nowadays.
For software engineers, I haven't seen a company which doesn't offer all of those things. I guess it depends on one's definition of "normal", "plenty" and "certain degree".
I think jobs in IT are tricky. I doubt anybody likes giving up their IP to others for cash, but you gotta eat. I find it funny companies want entrepreneurial types that are creative, self-motivated, fast learners, with expert level understanding of latest technology, but are completely ignorant too how much value they give away everyday they code for someone else. You really want to attract talent, pay them a fair wage, let them work on a side projects 20% of the time until they find something that pays for itself and then split the IP with them 50/50.
sort of like a job/incubator hybrid.
(wish I could patent ideas)
sort of like a job/incubator hybrid.
(wish I could patent ideas)
"The contradiction is that growth isn’t the only thing we want. We want to build a company that promotes remote work. We want to try new ways to motivate employees that don’t revolve around stock options with unknown value. And we want the ability to not grow when circumstances call for it."
Then use the model outlined in https://qbix.com/blog right now :)
Perhaps thinking of people as employees is outdated. Let's face it, these days the typical company or corporation doesn't care about its employees nearly as much as the product they produce. That's why your grandfather was a company man who worked 40 years with one firm, and today people flit from place to place.
It's also why people make less than they did then. Automation and outsourcing has reduced demand for human labor. Today (Real GDP / Population) is 10x more than in 1950s - so each person is 10x more productive on average - yet back then one regular man could pay for an entire household in the suburbs. Today both parents work, stick their kids in glorified daycare (public school) and still can barely make ends meet.
Perhaps the compensation model should be more project based.
Perhaps we should have single payer basic healthcare, food etc. unconditionally for everyone.
People live lives. Companies build products.
Then use the model outlined in https://qbix.com/blog right now :)
Perhaps thinking of people as employees is outdated. Let's face it, these days the typical company or corporation doesn't care about its employees nearly as much as the product they produce. That's why your grandfather was a company man who worked 40 years with one firm, and today people flit from place to place.
It's also why people make less than they did then. Automation and outsourcing has reduced demand for human labor. Today (Real GDP / Population) is 10x more than in 1950s - so each person is 10x more productive on average - yet back then one regular man could pay for an entire household in the suburbs. Today both parents work, stick their kids in glorified daycare (public school) and still can barely make ends meet.
Perhaps the compensation model should be more project based.
Perhaps we should have single payer basic healthcare, food etc. unconditionally for everyone.
People live lives. Companies build products.
Am I the only one who thought this article was going to be about an ISP startup because of the title, and was disappointed when it wasn't?
My thought process:
Internet company?
What is this? 1998?
OH it must be an ISP!
Nope. It's a chat for your website...
Wait, isn't there a million of these already?
* sigh *> Wait, isn't there a million of these already?
If there is a million of them, there must be business here, and if an entrepreneur thinks he can do it better than his average competitor, he should definetly go ahead.
A company doesn't need to be revolutionary to be a success-story. Distruptive ideas are exceptionally scarce and they represent a microscopic share of the economy as a whole.
If there is a million of them, there must be business here, and if an entrepreneur thinks he can do it better than his average competitor, he should definetly go ahead.
A company doesn't need to be revolutionary to be a success-story. Distruptive ideas are exceptionally scarce and they represent a microscopic share of the economy as a whole.
Of course this is totally fine. I'm responding to the comment that it is disappointing that this wasn't an ISP.
I thought: here's a guy who sees that there is an opportunity to create an ISP that will be privacy focused, and he's going to details all the steps along the way. That'd be quite exciting.
I thought: here's a guy who sees that there is an opportunity to create an ISP that will be privacy focused, and he's going to details all the steps along the way. That'd be quite exciting.
Are you raising any money for this venture or bootstrapping?
Bootstrapping for now.
Would you mind detailing the process of actually starting the company, ie incorporation? What are the costs involved, recurring or otherwise? Did you hire a lawyer, or use a service like LegalZoom?
Yes. The week 1 update goes into that. http://johnomar.com/powwow-progress-week-1/
I'm not sure why a Slack group is a bad idea. I'm in a half dozen or so, and every time I open Slack I see the icons for all these services. I am much more likely to visit the website of one of my Slack groups than I am, say, one of the Facebook groups I'm in. I'm not even in Slack every day while I spend an embarrassing amount of time on Facebook.
I've heard that Slack isn't really interested in supporting paid Slack communities in a meaningful way (all of the money is in enterprise chat). So I could see a company that's truly focused winning that battle. Facebook on the other hand seems pretty invested in private groups.
Naturally, I wish John the best of luck. Building a company is hard in and of itself, he's choosing to take on a particularly difficult version of that challenge. I hope he doesn't plan to bootstrap a community chat application.