Slashdot Mirror
Ask an Open Source Venture Capitalist
Richard Gorman, of Bay Partners, is a venture capitalist. Part of his job is to seek out and finance open source companies. He's not easy to snow technically; he has a Master's degree in Computer Science from MIT. And he's not easy to snow financially, either; he also has a Master's in Management. This is a golden opporttunity for all you budding entrepreneurs out there to find out exactly what a tech-hip, management-hip venture capitalist looks for in an open source-based startup. (As always, Slashdot interview rules apply.)
What is The Secret Handshake to join the Secret Society?
Your profile states your feelings that a "very strong team" is important to the success of a startup. However, most startups only have the basis for a technology team in place, and rarely have a strong executive team. In a recent interview with Robert X. Cringley, technologist-cum-Venture Capitalist Bill Joy stated that his firm worked with startups to assist in installing team members that are missing from a venture. (Google is an excellent example of this in action, with Page and Brin turning over the Chief Executive reigns to the more experienced Eric Schmidt.)
What are your thoughts and opinions on this practice? Does your firm assist startups with more than just financial matters, or do you feel it important that the startup be fully formed by the time you invest?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
In my (very) limited experience in dealing with the VC world, one of the key concepts that was always in any discussion was the exit strategy. Typically that translated into IPO or sale to someone else. Is this any different with respect to open source companies?
It just seems to me, and I'm just a knuckle-dragging developer here (who also engages in diy projects), that the exit strategies might be a bit different than your traditional concerns.
sad robot making broken music
Mr. Gorman,
In general, what qualities in an open source project do you find attractive and worthy of consideration for venture capital?
What are the most common problems that most startups have when begining talks with you?
"When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." --leonstryker
I have graduate degrees and experience in engineering, and I have good managerial and interpersonal skills. I have often wondered what it would take to sit on the other side of the table, and what it is like to have plenty of funding, helping other people bring good ideas to market.
How did you get your job? Is it hard, easy, boring, fascinating, soul-destroying, fulfilling, all of the above?
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
While Mobile is certainly hot among the young demographic groups nad mobile device sales have over taken sales of both servers and desktop PCs by a 2 to 1 ratio is often hard to break into this market as an opne source mobile application solutions company. What obstacles do you see in the form of: -Services Marketing -Tiered Markets -Funding -Mobile Operator Lock out I have wondered at times why Mobile Operators who geographically distant do not band together as VC fund to fund new mobile application/service companies to supply new stuff to hook customers..
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
Venture capitalist for the open source sounds like a great way for someone to make a ton of cash off some patents (and patents are bad news). What do we need open source capitalists for when established corporations have gone "open"?? What does open matter if the code is linked to non-open code? What needs more protection science or commerce???
ALTERNATIVE FREEDOM
A documentary about the invisible war on culture.
Features RMS, Danger Mouse (of Gnarls Barkley and the Grey Album), Lawrence Lessig, and more...
http://alternativefreedom.org/
Why have you chosen to fund Open Source based companies?
From a Venture Capitalist's point of view what advantages do open source based companies have over other software companies?
A masters in both CS and management? I'd love to see some of the arguments he gets into with himself...
This guy's the limit!
What are the most common mistakes that tech startups make when they approach VCs such as yourself?
You can and must know your subject area, in this case, tech. You also need to put together a business plan and shop it around. But the thing that there doesn't seem to be a lot of help out there on is the magic ingredient: learning to think like a Yankee trader. There's a certain kind of thinking that works out ways to monetize a technology product or service. Sales people kind of have it. MBAs don't have it, or if they do, in small degrees (learning the CAPM doesn't teach you how). Engineers definitely don't have it.
So where/how can the aspiring entrepreneurs among us learn how to think about how to make money with their marvelous inventions? Do you have any books, organizations, or workshops you could recommend?
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Given that the nature of venture capitalism is to fund startups, at what point do you pull out? Is there a critical size of a company which is a warning to pull out and cash in? If so, what size is it?
To put it more precisely: When, in your opinion, does a startup stop being a startup, and do you pull out and cash in when that point is reached?
In general, what drives you to fund a startup? Just as interesting would be what drives you away from funding a startup (other than the obvious answer of "their idea sucks").
Traditionally it's held that one of the things a company should have, if seeking venture capital, is "proprietary technology." Obviously in the
case of an open-source company this will never hold. Open-Source based businesses are always fundamentally different from an old-school technology
company in that you're not really selling bits; you're selling "something else" where the "something else" may vary depending on the business model.
So given that, and the thesis (mine at least) that the barriers to entry for competition are lower for an open-source company, what do you look for
in a potential investment? Are you looking for some radically new and innovative business model; with accompanying patent? Or is it all
about execution, suggesting that a would-be open-source company has to meet a higher standard in terms of attracting business and establishing
a customer base *before* getting funded?
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Crow T. Trollbot
Does the license of the open source matter to you? Do you have a preferred form of license, e.g., GPL vs. BSD? Obviously, some licenses are better for the developers to make a buck on versus others which aren't designed to hold cash flow.
The most successful OSS ventures have been focused on infrastructure needs (operating systems, networking, file serving, web serving, etc.). We haven't seen the same type of success with back office applications like accounting, ERP, supply chain management, asset management, warehouse management, etc. Is there something inherent in the OSS model that is preventing investment in back office OSS applications? Will we ever see successful OSS ventures in the back office?
What are the best ways to actually earn a profit, when you're giving away the source code? Are entrepreneurs in this area limited to "support, support, support", or are there other ways?
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Open source is not known for tight self-governance. Many techies tend to leave their work unfinished - instead of polishing it they rely on workarounds - which is why I found that they need to be tightly controlled. In a business with proprietary technology this is relatively easy to do, because the techies don't own any of the technology that's being developed. In open source technology fields, however, the techies may have less incentive to stay put, and they may leave the company easier if they feel constrained. My question is, how do you keep a high employee retention while controlling them enough to deliver adequate results in a realistic time frame?
Creating good UI and an overall understanding of user experience is a common shortcoming in OSS. The notable exceptions have had significant help from commercial companies with ui design expertise (say, Firefox, Ruby on Rails). Can you please describe how you think about user experience and OSS, and how that impacts investment decisions?
- initial thoughts on the UI when assessing products (obviously not so important for server tools)
- thoughts on UX expertise of the team
- more importantly, how you take a promising OSS company and add UX expertise?
thanks,
cz
That's more insightful than "Funny".
For example, how many ideas that were/are great ideas from an engineering perspective, but you had to pass because there wasn't a market for them? And what was it about those ideas that made them unmarketable?
I'm sure there are plenty of times where the business and engineering clashed.
Actually is the same functionality that currently exists in XP except you'll actually have a `limited use` feature instead of "YOU MUST ACTIVATE NOW" feature.
Typical Microsoft, same old shit repackaged under a new name.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
I think I have a great idea for a company that creates a product and provides services - the product would be build on largely on Open Source components and would be largely open-sourced itself (Similar to how IBM WSAD is built on Eclipse). I have a CS background but no MBA / startup experience. What are next steps do you recommend (e.g., books to read, people to contact, plans to formulate) etc. Thanks! -Frank
Collectively termed the Microsoft Software Protection Platform (except by SlashDotters, who'll always call it the MS pee-pee) ...
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
How often do you pass over useful, society-benefitting projects because some other novelty has a better bottom line? Is there funding for such beneficial projects, that may not have a strong commercial opening?
Yes, we understand these tags always apply: fud, dupe, typo, slashdotted, topic name
In your opinion, what are the 10 most common mistakes open source-based startups make when seeking venture capitol?
Would you say a masters in management easily translates into a strong footing in financial understanding?
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
I have been told that open source represents communism. Please explain how you reconcile this concept with venture capitalism. Thank you.
Arnold Kling in Under the Radar recommends that entrepreneurs start out by bootstrapping their operation by finding paying customers and actually making money before thinking about outside funding. What are your opinions about this way of starting up?
How did you move from the computer science to the VC world? What is the ideal way to make the transition from a highly technical environment to one that is more about business and management.
SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped)
What do you plan to do for a living after BubbleBurst 2.0?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Think of "snow" as being synonymous with "fool" or "trick" or "mislead." See the various definitions of snow job.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
[Error 407: No signature found]
And - even more specific - how is your understanding of doing this job? Do you understand it as bridging two worlds? Greetings, Chris
"An operating system must operate."
Having started a small website, that quickly turned into a medium sized website, that led to mentions in Private Equity Weekly, calls from Turner, speaking engagements, and emails from a couple Investment Banking firms, at what point should a startup seek outside funding vs. trying to bootstrap their way to success? We wanted to carry it as long as we could (we're not losing money, we can afford to run at this level forever), but we have since been equaled (or, in some cases passed) by a dozen or so copycats with big bankrolls funding their marketing and PR.
At this point, it feels like we've missed the boat (though our traffic and membership is higher than ever before), simply because we didn't take on the outside management and marketting expertise that would have come with real funding.
The question, then, is: does there exist a fundamental 'right time' to contact a VC/IB to avoid losing your competitive edge? Or, does it always vary by company?
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
I have a really great idea that I would like to market. Without getting into specifics it's along the lines of (legal) media distribution, and would involve licensing from big television/media companies. I haven't seen anything like my idea out there, and have been activly looking, as I have intrest in this idea as a consumer as well. I think it has a lot of potential and would compete well in the current market.
My question is this, how does one go about getting started? Could you give a general overview of how a successful startup works, as well as perhaps some good references for further research?
I occasionally listen to the Stanford Entrepreneurial thought leaders podcast, and Tom Byers mentioned in his presentation on 18 Jan 06 in his section on cashflow (min-36:38), the very high cost of traditional Venture Capitalist funding.
My understanding of typical Open Source projects is they're typically undertaken by smaller companies with a distributed team, sometimes with many staff working from home, and often have little corporate resources.
Why should a small company in this situation risk taking on 'expensive' VC funding over bootstrapping? (i.e trying to get money up front from a customer etc); And how do you make the actual cost of VC affordable for smaller companies and projects?
Most OSS ideas come from coders with very few business experience, I guess. So the code might be there, but not the business plan. I guess you won't invest at such a early stage. Are you aware of any good concept where to find this marketing know how, so the projects gets far enough to find an investor?
One of the answers might be 'business angels', but at least in my state, the whole BA scene has disappeared (the local BA organisation has not helped any entrepreneur in the first 3 years of it's existence and then decided to close the organisation completely).
I have been cautioned by others with startup experience that without sufficient capital to defend the patent you might as well not have the patent in the first place. There is nothing to prevent a competitor with more resources from exploiting it. And even if you do have the funds, defending it be a very lengthy process with many appeals, all the time you could be bleeding more cash than your competitor. How serious of a concern should this be for an open-source software project and should funds for patent defense be part of the original VC outlay and planned for from the beginning?
"Trying is only the first step towards failure." - Homer
Why then invest in Open Source? What are the advantages to this model of business from an investment standpoint? Are there disadvantages from an investor's standpoint? How do you weigh those?
-Todd
Put down the sig, and step away from the computer.
Wish I had mod points, this is a very interesting question to get answered. Exit strategy is always a key question when discussing business with VC people.
What is your opinion of the open source hardware projects that you are aware of, and do any stand chance of becoming success stories like so many of the software projects have?
Also, have you come across many business opportunities that could be filled by open source hardware (care the describe them?), or do companies shy away from open source hardware for some reason (if so, why?)?
Thank you!
-- PGP keyID: 0x4C95994D
This is usually the best answer. I've found that anything from a simple misunderstanding of how a bit of physics works to a lack of the necessary modeling calculations can cause you to start down a path that won't really work. Consulting with an expert (most of whom are happy to answer questions from someone who's honestly interested in the field) can often help you understand the problem, should one exist.
However, don't take an expert's word on something not working. If his answer doesn't make sense, then it may be a set of prejudices rather than known science. In which case you should continue to investigate the science behind your discovery until you either find the problem on your own, or feel you can prove it to the experts.
Good luck!
P.S. If you're questioning if you are a crackpot for your findings, then you're probably not a crackpot. The actual crackpots stick to their guns in the face of irrefutable evidence, and usually manufacture hilarous conspiracy stories on why they have to keep secrets about their work. I'd take the time to tell you about this one fellow (supposedly a Ph.D.) who tried to prove his super-luminal engine based on the relativistic mass increases in fuel, but that would be a rather lengthy tangent.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
My question is if I want to send information and/or do a presentation, should I first get a NDA or some other legal document signed by you that says you won't just take the idea and give it to someone you are already dealing with?
"Saying that Linux is inferior to Windows because more people use Windows is like saying that all restaurants are inferi
..You were a /.'er in my situation what would you ask yourself?
I have no business plan, or enough information to even know the potential of the market I'm targeting. All I know is that the products available now suck, and not just a little. So my question is, what should be my first step to starting a startup at this point? What do I need before I can approach investors?
I would say that you need several things: some fundamental business know-how, some idea of what business model you might adopt for your business, and some contacts that can help out. You can gain these things in a variety of ways.
Regarding basic business know-how:
You could take classes in the basics of management, micro-economics, macro-enonomics, business finance, etc. at a local community college or something. You could self educate yourself by just doing a lot of reading; taking the appraoch I've dubbed the used bookstore MBA, etc.
Regarding business model:
Google and blogs are your friend here, as well as books about existing open-source companies and startups. Google for
Open Source Business Models and just start reading. Read Under The Radar, Under The Radar, Art of the Start and High Tech Startup among others.
Regarding contacts:
See if you have any friends or acquaintances that run their own business (it doesn't have to be tech related). Ask them to meet you for lunch
to sit and just chat about business. Ask them for advice, tips, other contacts, etc. Find out if your area has any sort of business networking group, a "leads group," etc. If so, join and attend meetings. Meet people, talk to them, throw ideas around, ask interesting people out to lunch, etc. Attend local users groups meetings, LUGs, JUGs, etc. Not all of the attendees will be (just) techies: some will be entrepreneurs, managers, etc. that could be potential partners, future employees, etc. Attend and get to know people. Chat, schmooze and take notes. Ask interesting people out to lunch. Lather, rinse, repeat. Read The Little Black Book of Connections and similiar books.
If you do enough of this, you will eventually reach a point where you have some solid ideas about what to do, and more specific questions to ask. Once you reach that point, you can start digging deeper with help from your new-found connections and other resources.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
How can we as developers of OS Software improve our chances to get funding? What types of business plans options (support, shrink wrapped software, pay-pal donations, etc...) do you see as being potential profit turners that can result in a return on investment? IOW: What features/functionality should we add to our teams and products to make them more attractive to investors?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
As a lead-maintainer / developer of a successfull open source project and a freelancer and company partner who focuses on OSS I have a three-part question:
1) How do I get to talk to someone like you? What would be the best approach?
2) What do you want to see from someone who approaches you? Neat, well formulated ideas? Implementations? Finished business plans? A running company? All four?
3) What bores you to death and what talks have you had with VC seekers that where a total waste of your time? What where the things they did wrong?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
.. Eeeuuw. Sorry about the spelling.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
... in science.
Take the case of a company that has been in business for 7 years or so, and has successfully bootstrapped themselves into a modest little venture using their own open source technology. They have offices, employees (even salesmen!), a small management team, a decent little client base, and no debt. But they are very much a small business.
Now, with their hard-fought, real-world experience, understanding of their sector, and practical experience with using open source to make real money, they think they see a new opportunity in the marketplace, which their technology is well-positioned for. But going after this market will require a big investment, at least doubling the company size, and will probably require a whole new management team.
The question is: how is this problem like or unlike a start-up? Do VCs tackle this situation differently than they would a pure start-up? Should the company approach VCs differently than a start-up would? Or is this out of VC territory altogether?
As a college student who is starting up a business, the biggest hindrance is my seeming lack of appearance. What tips would you have for young people with good ideas who want to present their researched business ideas/plans in a way that gets noticed?
I have what I believe to be an excellent open source opportunity that I would love to develop around an existing open source product. There are a number of potential concerns however, namely:
/.'s audience is bright enough to have thought up an idea like mine.
1. The parent software has some issues that may make my company a target for patient and other legal attacks. For example, it uses Mpeg4, and plays DVD's under Linux.
2. The product would be heavily dependant upon COTS (commercial off the shelf) hardware from a manufacturer that does not provide detailed specifications, and thus could easily force us into a licensing agreement by simply changing the hardware and making all current open source drivers obsolete.
3. The product would be competing in a several hundred million dollar industry where it is not likely to be well liked by it's powerful and wealthy competitors, and thus would be a target for any shenanigans they might dream up.
4. Finally, I have essentially no development experience, nor do I have any skilled developers at my disposal. Instead I would need to attempt to bribe (for lack of a better word) the parent software's developers to make changes to their software as well as recruit my own developers to handle the proprietary end of the product that will be used to make the OSS marketable for the application in mind.
I can imagine that issues such as these have great influence in your decisions. There could be nothing worse that funding the next best thing since sliced bread only to have the project destroyed by legal, political, or underhanded business practices. How big a part do these factors play in your decision making process?
Do you believe that open source startups should be headed by a business minded developer, or is it more important for that leader to have a clear vision and a larger view of the project? In other words, would I, with no way to demonstrate what I hope to accomplish, even be taken seriously with just an idea, a business plan, and a lot of motivation? Even if that idea had enormous potential to become a leader in a multi-hundred-million dollar industry?
I appreciate your willingness to participate in this Q&A, I am sure this discussion will be very popular as I know that most of
By the way, I conceived an internet connected, MP3 downloading/playing Jukebox... called a lawyer who specialized in Jukebox copyright law, had a great discussion with him regarding how Jukebox law might apply to downloaded music, and I never heard back from him again. A year or so later they started hitting bars and pool halls in my area. A little research found that this lawyer had his name on a patent or two related to the product. I have since learned to be a cryptic as possible about my ideas, sorry about that!
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
Back in 2003 Baystar Capital thought it would be a good idea to help The SCO Group with $50m towards fighting opensource. Is there any relationship between Baystar and Bay Partners including any investments in your company?
I have code already implemented and complete video presentations and documents on my home page at http://www.wanfear.com/~mbrito Be sure to check the video demo of VXD. No gimmicks, just implementations. Feedback appreciated.
What can I say? Life carries risk. The key is that you are not an expert in the subject and don't know a trustworthy expert on the subject. So the chances are far higher that you've made a mistake rather than having stumbled upon something new. The gamble isn't as great as you might think, especially since most experts get into their field because they enjoy sharing knowledge.
While there is a minor possibility that you have stumbled on something amazing, you do have a "paper trail" of emails, Slashdot posts, and other evidence that - should it become necessary - could be used to prove your case in a court of law.
A much better idea would be to accept the expert on his offer. What offer would that be? Collaboration, of course. You probably lack the knowledge, expertise, and background to bring the matter to fruition. Which means that collaboration could provide you a way to bring the discovery to light while the expert gets to share the credit for your discovery. Thus everyone wins.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The cash infusion did not a miraculous turn-around make.
The lack of progress caused calls for cost-cutting. It is easy for the finance people to quantify how much money they would save by cutting salary expense. There is no similar offset for computing the increase in ill will....
Every year, the company announces another layoff. Every year, the competition (Microsoft) announces the imminent death of the company. Every year, customers learn that some of the people they had been working with are now gone. Every year, the people still there watch the company cannibalize itself a little more to make the investors happy.
Back at the board room, it has gotten to the point where the large cash investors essentially want the company to liquidate itself. If they get the company to sell itself off in pieces, they can recoup some of the cash they invested.
My question One: how can a company tell which large cash investors are terribly bad news? Is there some way to identify the pillagers from the long-term growth investors?
My question Two: is there any way to save the company? Really good progress is being made; but, it isn't happening overnight.
Thank you for your time with these questions.
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
For a lot of technology startups, there's got to be a point where the VCs are interested, but want to do some technical due dilligence. Things like making sure that new technology really does have the potential to perform as advertised, or that the founders aren't making obvious mistakes in areas outside of their direct expertise (ex, embedded hardware requirements from software developers, or software development plans from hardware jockeys).
So... who do you turn to when you feel the need to do some technical due dilligence on a company you're planning on investing in? Are there any opportunities for nuts-and-bolts technical people to get involved with a VC in this capacity, or is this something that is generally handled in-house or though personal contacts?
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
I have developed a next generation build tool, a make replacement, called KJam ( http://www.oroboro.com/kjam ). I am having some success licensing it under a traditional 'closed' license to software development companies.
I have received interest from some large open source projects to switch to using kjam as their build tool. The problem is that since they are open source they can only allow development tools in their toolchain which are themselves open source. Since they give all their users the right to build their software, they can only use tools that their users are also licensed to use.
Clearly I would love to make it possible for these projects to be able to use kjam as it would be a tremendous endorsement. But if I do that won't I need to provide such liberal licensing terms that I would be unable to continue to sell commercial licenses?
I have seen some open source software projects succeed with 'dual licensing' where the product is free for non-commercial use, but requires a license for commercial use ( e.g. license required for integration into your commercial product like trolltech, or commercial licenses required for some applications or configurations like mySql and Asterisk ).
Are there open source licenses which would be liberal enough to allow other open source projects ( and their users ) to use my build tool and still give me an avenue to sell licenses to large corporate software developers?
My project (a web based game; see my user profile) sees about 40,000 users every day across the globe. Right now our operational costs (two dedicated servers w/ substantial bandwidth) are 100% funded (and well in the black) by user donations.
To me, this makes the project a success, and demonstrates clearly that there's a real market for such a project, as users are of their own free will willing to support it wholly.
Real life gets in the way of me being able to dedicate the same level of devotion that I used to be able to give the project, but I personally am confident that if we had funding that enabled us to hire just one or two developers and purchase some additional equipment, the project could take off like a rocket. We have a huge list of ideas for improvement -- things that we simply don't have the time to successfully realize today, but which we could if it was our job.
So my question is, what would you recommend we do to seriously pursue getting real funding. How do we first find someone that is not turned off by the idea of an open source model, and second will actually listen to our proposed business plan? When talking to them, what sort of things are they looking for that demonstrates that we're serious, willing to work hard, and aren't just looking for a free ride to tinker around on code?
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Can I have $100k CAD to develop a multiplatform video game over the next year (sort of an adventure/exploration/sim shipwrecked on a desert island game)? Like id, I'll release the source code when I finish my next project.
- chrish
I run a small open source startup that's doing quite well. We've been profitable every year, and keep doubling (or more) our revenues year after year. I sometimes think that I should seek out Venture Capital to take the business to the next level, but in same thought, I talk myself out of it. The conversation in my head goes, why would I give up a portion of a company that's doing so well to some outside firm? What realistic gains could I make in a short time if I had some VC funding that I can't make now? And I always come to the conlusion that VC funding is a much bigger risk than organic growth. So big of a risk, in fact, that it's benefits don't outweigh the risks. However, since we have this opportunity, I thought I'd ask: Why would an already successful startup want to seek venture capital? And what benefits, besides funding, does a VC firm such as yours bring to the table?
I really need someone with the skills to blatently state that an MIT CS degree holder can't be stumped technologically, and that someone with a MBA can't be stumped in business.
Did you approve that copy? Wow. You know better. Nice marketing if you did.
+++OK ATH