If you take one thing from my comment then take this - you're 1/2 the age of many people here and have decades of opportunities ahead of you.
If you're 1) unable to raise money, 2) need money to scale and 3) don't have any money then I suggest taking care of your needs first and foremost. There are lots of glamorized stories of people barely scraping by and beating all odds. It doesn't have to be that way and it's healthier if you're wise about the risks you're taking.
I'd like to give more optimistic advice but the truth is that you're young. For many it's an opportune time to do a start-up but you're in a position which makes something that's already difficult even more difficult.
If you truly believe in the your idea and partner then you can take up some consulting work and do the start-up part time.
I also question the working relationship if you and your partner aren't feeling the same level of stress. It's critical that either you're both in the trenches or neither of you are.
I'm sorry to hear it. I've seen you guys posting on HN over the past year or two, particularly on topics like Everpix.
While I mourn the loss of Everpix and Trovebox, I'm baffled as to the market's failure to replace them. I'm now a very happy user of Google+ as my Everpix replacement, and Dropbox seems to be pursuing the same market with their Carousel acquisition. But G+ (and presumably Dropbox) still lacks essential features that Everpix had, like deduplication, automatic ordering by date, e-mail flashbacks, etc etc.
I never tried Trovebox, but I'm very sorry to hear that you're shutting down. Though I honestly can't see how even a giant like Dropbox can compete in this market, much less a startup. The cloud is served by economies of scale, and Amazon, Google, and Microsoft seem to be the only possible competitors in the long run.
Thanks. It really is a brutal space to be in. I blogged at the beginning of 2014 about why we left the consumer space for the business space .
The "fork" of Trovebox that is mentioned in the shutdown email is what we should have been working on all along. But it took us 3 1/2 years to figure that out. I don't think we could have taken a shortcut here. Now we have the backing of a big company to make that happen. It's bittersweet but also exciting.
> Google is trying to help the brick-and-mortar companies compete with Amazon
I'm not sure that wording is accurate. Google is leveraging the brick-and-mortar companies to compete with Amazon and collect more data about its users. Arguably some of the most valuable data they could get; spending and buying habits.
I doubt Target is thrilled that Google is looking to inject themselves as a middleman between them and their customers. Target has historically leveraged customer buying habits pretty aggressively . I'd be surprised if their execs aren't frantically trying to figure out how to keep Google from "helping" them compete with Amazon.
It'll be pretty easy for target to prevent google from helping them, they can just decline to participate in the program. They are participants though, which should tell you something about how target actually feels about the program. And they don't lose any customer habit data, as customers still use their loyalty cards through Google Express.
Almost all of Google's profit right now is derived from B2B relationships. Providing services to other businesses is what they do. Yes, they make a good profit while they're doing it, but to suggest the business who are google's customers don't see any benefit from it is silly.
Valid point. I'm not sure what "participate" really means though. Do Google Express customers have to provide their loyalty cards? Does Target get all of the data they'd get if the customer shopped in store or through their own delivery service?
It would be silly to imply that Google's customers don't see any benefit as they're obviously getting some revenue and data.
But it would be similarly silly to imply that Target participating in the program doesn't mean they're concerned about it and not looking for ways to handle the customer's experience end to end.
>Do Google Express customers have to provide their loyalty cards?
No. I order stuff from Target via Google Shopping Express multiple times a week without a loyalty card. I didn't even know Target had loyalty cards, in fact! Also if you're logged into your account you go go here and see what loyalty cards you can type in:
The list includes Costco, REI, Staples, etc. but not Target.
Target offers 5% discount on purchases if you use the RedCard Debit (linked to your bank account), credit, or Visa credit cards (no longer offered for new customers.) Essentially, they give you the fees charged by the payment brands and processors as a discount for using their card instead.
Target could compete effectively with the Google and Amazon offerings by adding delivery to their Cartwheel app.
The longer I've written tests the truer this becomes. Nowadays it doesn't take me much time to write the tests. I'm not a TDD zealot but I often write tests in conjunction with a new feature. I've found that it makes the overall process faster, resulting code simpler and interface to the code more consistent.
A small investment of time writing tests before implementation yields the best overall results across the board.
The article makes some very odd conclusions. Of course the wealth of homeowners will generally be higher than renters. The only plausible conclusion to draw from that is people in most of the U.S. Will buy a house once they can afford it (and sometimes when they can't).
The majority of people renting do so because they don't qualify for a loan (or as the article suggests) can't save money for a down payment. They don't own a home because they're less wealthy. They're not more wealthy because they didn't decide to purchase a home.
The article just read like a fluff piece. I think that a home as a mechanism for "forced" savings does make a lot of sense. But it's by no means a first resort. I think people are better off looking at purchasing a home as they do other large ticket items and not as an investment.