

Camera+ turned down acquisition offers and says no to VC money - freshfey
http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/08/camera-plus-turns-2-says-eff-the-vcs/

======
grellas
_Will the failure of the Facebook IPO change the climate here going forward?
Possibly. But it doesn’t matter . . . we didn’t build this company with the
intention to flip it. We’re in it for the long-haul and we’re committed to
building a real business that makes great apps, not on selling-out._

The strongest position any founder can hold. It doesn't mean you can't
consider and even take short-term options for funding or acquisition. It means
you need not take them unless you can do so on your own terms. Entrepreneurs
have come a long way in this most recent decade in being able to do rapid
company development - historically, the scale at which this is happening is
quite dramatic - but some things never change: to succeed, develop a sound
business model and be very careful not to get yourself overextended
financially in the process of building it out. Doing that is no guarantee of
success but it is a sure-fire way to limit your risks of failure.

------
Jgrubb
This whole scene reminds me so much of the record business of yore.

The bit about VCs swooping in with just enough money to keep you alive and not
really giving much of a rip about your creative endeavors and as soon as it
looks like you might not be a million dollar baby dropping you like a hot
potato.

"punk and indie developers". I really like that.

~~~
RandallBrown
I read an article or comment somewhere that compared making a startup to
making a band. There really are a lot of parallels.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Well, a band essentially is a start-up business. Although funding etc. works a
little differently.

------
mseebach
It seems to make sense to run the numbers here:

8 million sold $1 apps, less 30% to app stores, that's $5.6m. If all 17 people
on the about page took $100k salaries for the full two years (which they
probably haven't, they've likely grown to this size from a lower number over
the two years), that leaves $2.2m for running costs and profit. Besides that,
they have 7 other apps in their portfolio which must be expected to provide
some revenue.

In other words, what would they possibly do with more cash?

~~~
lemming
$2.2MM is probably peanuts compared to what they would have made in an
acquisition, you'd have to figure that any acquisition price would be far
north of $8MM. I'm perversely glad they didn't take it, it's great to see
people really dedicated to actually starting a viable business, but frankly
I'm surprised. I'd like to think I'd make the same choice but I'm not sure,
especially if I were the founder. Still, kudos to them.

~~~
mseebach
See the chart here: [http://blog.asmartbear.com/wp-content/ss-
images/lifestyle-ve...](http://blog.asmartbear.com/wp-content/ss-
images/lifestyle-versus-cash-in-bank.png) from
<http://blog.asmartbear.com/rich-vs-king-sold-company.html>

------
rjsamson
I love seeing stories like this. Too often VC funding or cashing out are seen
as the primary measure of startup success, rather than building a successful
business.

------
lemming
Great story, and it's a shame that this attitude is so unusual. I guess the
success stories from bootstrapping don't get the press, so maybe it's not so
unusual after all. Still, it's a nice counterpoint to the usual VC-is-the-
endgoal idea.

------
muellerwolfram
if you have a product thats selling so well, is growing organically, and is
already build...why would you ever consider outside funding?

~~~
petenixey
We seldom acknowledge it but I think the truth of the matter is that a lot of
people become entrepreneurs because they want the recognition, the fame and
the status.

As silly as it is, taking VC money gives you that in a way that is much harder
to achieve with actual tangible success. You might be killing it with your
product but carefully explaining your company metrics to someone over dinner
is seldom more impactful than saying you took $10M from Andreeson-Horrowitz.

This is not entirely unreasonable as most people realise they are unable to
judge the success or otherwise of early stage companies (even VCs struggle).
Telling someone you were invested in by a great VC tells them that someone who
knows their stuff things you're great. It's a marquee endorsement.

If you'd asked me whether I wanted the status I'd have always said yes. At the
same time though I never acknowledged it in my life-calculations. I always
wondered why I gambled on a big outcome when I knew a smaller outcome would
(financially speaking) make me very, very happy. I doubt there are many people
who can point to the happiness bump from the second $30M.

Acknowledging that recognition was one of my goals made it all of a sudden
easier to rationalise decisions that, while optimal for my investors were
actually totally sub-optimal for my personal financial utility. One of those
decisions may well be having investors in the first place.

~~~
yesimahuman
This is a really interesting point. To give an example, one of my friends in
that scene thinks that 37signals is probably "not doing that well." I can only
guess this is because they aren't raising tons of VC and having their name
plastered all over TC.

~~~
jcampbell1
Your friend is simply wrong. I think buying a house in italy and commissioning
a custom super car is evidence that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

[http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/07/pagani-zonda-hh-
commissio...](http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/07/pagani-zonda-hh-commissioner-
revealed-as-30-year-old-chicago-sof/)

~~~
jsprinkles
That means DHH is doing well, and has little to do with 37signals.

~~~
miles
_Sorry to post this here, but jsprinkles' profile is empty._

@jsprinkles: do you have a blog or website? Really enjoyed your xip.io
comments (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4082017>) and would like to
keep up with your adventures. On a related note, it would be nice if HN had
RSS feeds for specific user submissions and comments.

~~~
jsprinkles
I prefer to stay semi-anonymous, but a few people know who I am (it wouldn't
be rocket science to deduce). When I posted under my real name folks I did not
know would come up to me at conferences and argue with me about things I had
said on Hacker News. People tend to get offended by my remarks because I
disagree with a lot of this culture, so it's also easier to just keep that
separate from my career.

Thank you for the kind words.

------
Tomis02
I never understood this whole rush to sell your business. When I build
something I become emotionally invested in it and I wouldn't sell unless I
started hating my product or not believing in it any more.

There should be a clear motivation behind selling something you care about
(well, if you ever cared about your product in the first place, that is), not
because techcrunch or VCs tell you it's the right thing to do.

------
jemeshsu
I suspect Apple will add in filters feature into Camera and Photos app in iOS
6. This might impact some income for Camera+ app.

------
perlpimp
Perhaps they can take the money and invest in iPad version of the app. iPad is
the next thing after iPhone and it is shame that I have to use such app in
iPhone compatibility mode.

But reading from the story seems like taking money from those kind of
investors isn't such a good idea going forward.

2c

------
brynner
Actually should not accept investments from any one, but the says "f*ck the
VCs" is unethical.

