I worked for a start-up that failed (as an employee, not a founder). We were able to get "angel" funding to keep going for a couple of years but not the big VC money that was needed for this domain (medical devices, so no "customers" other than euthanized animals).
The founders were serial entrepreneurs with a good track record and a lot of clout. I would summarize the reasons for failure as the following:
1) Obsessive efforts on patents, sucking up valuable time of key people.
2) Not enough nitty-gritty technical folks. Literally half of the staff were "Vice presidents"-- if you can even imagine that.
3) I remember reading Guy Kawasaki's 10-20-30 rule (http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2005/12/the_102030_rule.html) and laughing at what were putting on-- more like "200 slides - 8 hours - 10pt font".
4) We shoulda made a more convincing prototype. We could have done it if less time was spent on patents and bullshit.
The founders had been successful in a much smaller domain. They made a lot of money and, I think, wanted to raise the stakes. It was a reach and it didn't work. However, I don't think anyone has/had hard feelings. We tried, learned a lot, and got to do some interesting stuff.
I now work for a boring company to pay the bills and do moonlight freelance with a buddy. If we ever go down the start-up route, I doubt we would ever attempt getting VC funding. I prefer keeping things small, manageable and profitable-- even if the profit is small.
The founders were serial entrepreneurs with a good track record and a lot of clout. I would summarize the reasons for failure as the following:
1) Obsessive efforts on patents, sucking up valuable time of key people. 2) Not enough nitty-gritty technical folks. Literally half of the staff were "Vice presidents"-- if you can even imagine that. 3) I remember reading Guy Kawasaki's 10-20-30 rule (http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2005/12/the_102030_rule.html) and laughing at what were putting on-- more like "200 slides - 8 hours - 10pt font". 4) We shoulda made a more convincing prototype. We could have done it if less time was spent on patents and bullshit.
The founders had been successful in a much smaller domain. They made a lot of money and, I think, wanted to raise the stakes. It was a reach and it didn't work. However, I don't think anyone has/had hard feelings. We tried, learned a lot, and got to do some interesting stuff.
I now work for a boring company to pay the bills and do moonlight freelance with a buddy. If we ever go down the start-up route, I doubt we would ever attempt getting VC funding. I prefer keeping things small, manageable and profitable-- even if the profit is small.