Yup. Acquired for $101M then subsequently shut down in 1-2 years (just kidding of course).
I don't know if it's in my best interest to answer this publicly, but screw it. The honest answer is I'm not entirely too sure, but an acquisition is always on the table for any startup IMO. I think whenever you ask a founder, "If someone offered you $100M, would you take it?", it's a pretty loaded question.
There's really three outcomes to a startup: They die, they get acquired, they IPO. The thing is, if you think your company is valued at $1M and someone offers you $100M, of course you're most likely going to take it. It's 100x what you were expecting and it would be unwise not to take it. However, if you deep down believe that your company is worth more or can be worth more than the offering price and you have the proof to back it up, then it'd be unwise to take the offer.
For me, I strongly believe that email has A LOT to go. I mean, it's nearly 2016 and I still can't connect my Dropbox to my Gmail app client or send stuff into Evernote / Trello? Given all the time we spend on email, shouldn't we at least have some better automation / AI integration by now? Something smarter and more contextually aware that can make my life a bit easier?
So many people use email in the world. Literally everyone that has a Facebook account has to have an email account. I think the reason why we haven't seen a billion dollar plus company yet is that it's very ubiquitous and it's hard to build solutions for the masses. So companies give up, sell out, close down, and then we have to start again at ground zero.
So to your question, what's the end goal? Well, if we're right about our beliefs, hopefully we can become the next billion dollar company. If not, then it's the other two options: get acquired or die. Which one will it be? No idea, but we're just working our butts off right now.
> There's really three outcomes to a startup: They die, they get acquired, they IPO.
There's a fourth: they serve the needs of their customers over the course of years and decades. which, as someone in the market for an email client I can fall in love with and use for the rest of my life; is exactly what I want.
It's interesting that this option wasn't even considered.
Why does every startup need to aim to take over the world overnight? Is it not feasible to first take external funding to grow quickly in early stages, and then transition to a more organic growth model once you reach a point of profitability and sustainability (and maybe also slowly buy back shares in the company to eventually become fully autonomous)?
If that was an option, he wouldn't be in YC, half-accidentally or otherwise. Nothing against YC here, but long-term steady-state isn't what they're looking for. Remember that next time you start using a VC-funded tool.
Again, how was that not an option? Why did he have to get into YC? What's wrong with telling them that the type of unsustainable growth isn't right for their business now that they've had a chance to look at things?
Of course its feasible! But is it preferable? No. I want to work on on something for 2-3 years, tops, and then cash out and or move on. I don't want to grind a project for the next 10 years. Life is too short for that.
thats certainly your choice to make, but my point was simply that there is an alternative way to do things. For me, if I could work on my best idea for the rest of my life, and it could go and serve the needs of millions of people (or even just a few thousand) across the globe, that would be pretty cool.
I don't disagree with you at all, but the idea I want to work on isn't going to make me wealthy. I just need enough money in the bank so that basic needs are met, rent is taken care of, and I can go work on fixing homelessness, dysfunctional healthcare systems, etc.
Those are really the only three outcomes for a venture-backed startup
Once you raise venture capital, you have to go big or go home, in the span of a decade. You don't have the "grow slow and stay private" option after raising a Series A.
That being said, this is just the current, common state in VC-backed companies. With the weak IPO market and hostile public environment that forces short-term quarterly thinking, we may see alternatives like formalized secondary markets. Perhaps companies like Uber will be able to avoid going public and still provide liquidity options for their early investors & employees.
> Yup. Acquired for $101M then subsequently shut down in 1-2 years (just kidding of course).
> hopefully we can become the next billion dollar company. If not, then it's the other two options: get acquired or die.
No offense, but it doesn't really sound like you were kidding. I have no skin in this game because I never used Mailbox and am content to continue using GMail, but if I was upset about this shutdown and in the market for a new email client that would be around long-term, your answer wouldn't exactly inspire confidence. You've basically said you're going to shut down (or get acquired and then, inevitably shut down) unless you hit the lottery ticket of a billion dollar company.
Speaking more generally, I think this sort of attitude is going to catch up with VC-backed startups sooner or later. Why would I make my workflow depend on a startup that is, in all likelihood, going to either shut down or get acquired and shut down? For anything with a high switching cost, using a product from a VC-backed startup that has this outlook is just going to cause me problems later if I get dependent on it.
I think a lot of companies would do better by their customers (and themselves) if they instead looked for a more sustainable business model. But there isn't as much of a lottery ticket in those businesses, so I can see why some founders avoid it.
"So to your question, what's the end goal? Well, if we're right about our beliefs, hopefully we can become the next billion dollar company. If not, then it's the other two options: get acquired or die."
What's wrong with just having a nice business that just makes some money?
Without joining the rush to judgement, allow me to say that I find this to be a legitimate inquiry, especially given the nature of your appeal in this thread. Care to respond?
