You could make gmail "the best email reading and management experience on the planet by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude", and they're still not going to end up handling mail for the nsa.gov domain. I'm not sure how far down the paranoia scale from email@example.com you need to go before having Google index your internet-cat-pictures and know your social graph becomes the right choice, but there are certainly people with email management needs that Google are not going to address.
The philosophy of "why build something, because company x, with infinite money, will just build it better" I think is a flawed one.
Fascinating quote, but do you think you can articulate why it is flawed? Was it something your investors asked you?
I think the hardest question to answer for a lot of startups is "what happens if [company X with infinite money] decides to copy you"?
My first instinct might be to say I'm one of the top ten or twenty people in the world who are capable of writing the code for my product (however arrogant that might sound), but even if that's true, that still leaves nine or so others that Infinite Money Company could recruit to compete.
Is truly the only good answer being the very absolute best in the field, or are there other good answers?
2. Ben and Jesse are in the top 1% of Toronto talent. Ben did his masters in NLP.
3. Google has a history of buying off companys like this for 20 to 30 million, so if you're an investor that is comforting.
4. Jesse has cofounded a successful company before.
> The thinking here is that SaaS/PaaS companies require more infrastructure, better/higher quality infrastructure, more bandwidth, and more senior/seasoned engineers.
It would be interesting to know the variance in responses. I know this wasn't meant to imply statistical significance, but I'm just curious what these results would be with a larger and more random sample.
If I'm paying you $90k, I'll expect to incur an additional $90k in costs resulting from employing you.
//Now, if they've re-mortgaged their house and are eating $180k per annum in equity / stock instead of salary, then it could be an almost-fair-number.