|
|
|
|
|
|
by csfl
5051 days ago
|
|
|
We definitely could have been more efficient, we had a lot to learn. But the biggest problem I see is that we were still quite efficient producing features but not so much validating assumptions and developing customers/users (my stance: "let's go test it now and perhaps make some mistakes publicly but get feedback early", his stance: "it won't work unless we finish feature X, we have to change our business model and implement feature Y to target customers more likely to pay because this awesome guy from this large company I just met says they would pay", my reaction: "ok, sounds reasonable, let's try it." and it of course lead nowhere :) the awesome new guy probably changed his opinion, etc.). And yeah, I have difficulties with trust maybe in general but I believe I've done my part well enough in this case. |
|
|
Sorry, but it appears to me to be that he wants as most coding done as possible before he invariable cuts you out of the deal. Going public would mean that you have a kind of partnership and are therefore entitled to equity. By keeping it private, or in a prototype phase, he can keep the number of people who are aware you are working together to a minimum.