Its easy to create perceptions of yourself that are simply not true. I was one of the people who got that mail. I really thought about shooting an upset sounding email to Paul. But thought the better of it -- amazing that every other person on that list did the same. Only when I met the YCombinators on the interviews to a subsequent cycle did I figure that they were nice people (inspite of not making it). Absolutely no hard feelings, though. Looking back, I simply was not prepared enough to do a startup. I eventually got around to realizing that I did not need money to built a product -- just a committed co-founder -- and so thats what I did. Yesterday's rejection did not sting at all.
Sagan intended this as an allusion to Thomas Carlyle. 'A sad spectacle!' exclaimed Thomas Carlyle, contemplating the possibility that millions of planets circle other suns. 'If they be inhabited, what a scope for pain and folly; and if they be not inhabited, what a waste of space!' Contact is not the only place this allusion occurs in Sagan, who previously quoted Carlyle during a conference on extraterrestrials; Google makes a video of the conference available online.
Heh... I wonder how many people don't even know that Contact was originally a book by Carl Sagan. Although the movie was more true to the book than most, the book was much better than the movie, as is usually the case.
"The universe was made on purpose, the circle said. In whatever galaxy you happen to find yourself, you take the circumference of a circle, divide it by its diameter, measure closely enough, and uncover a miracle--another circle, drawn kilometers downstream of the decimal point. There would be richer messages farther in. It doesn't matter what you look like, or what you're made of, or where you come from. As long as you live in this universe, and have a modest talent for mathematics, sooner or later you'll find it. It's already here. It's inside everything. You don't have to leave your planet to find it. In the fabric of space and in the nature of matter, as in a great work of art, there is, written small, the artist's signature. Standing over humans, gods, and demons, there is an intelligence that antedates the universe.
The circle had closed. She found what she had been searching for.
I see. But maybe it is better for you to find a local investor then? YC team and YC crowd may just don't know India market well to help you with advices, etc. Or it's a big problem to find money in India?
For an experienced team -- probably not. A bunch of 26 year olds will definitely have a crisis of credibility -- even with a functional product (which is the case with us). To a very large extent, a group like YC will give us the kind of credibility we need to approach the Indian angel/VC community. Not to mention the fact that the Indian press will love it :)
"Acquirers are less prone to irrational exuberance than IPO investors. The closest you'll get to Bubble valuations is Rupert Murdoch paying $580 million for Myspace. That's only off by a factor of 10 or so."
I was probably wrong in saying it was only worth a tenth of that, but I still think $580 million was high. Remember, what he bought wasn't the present-day Myspace. Most of Myspace's user base (and thus value) was added since the acquisition.
"Most of Myspace's user base (and thus value) was added since the acquisition."
How many of those new users were because of News Corp's acquisition? If majority of those users would be added anyway (if it was just a matter of time), and an astute investor could predict that, its valuation of $580m or even more would be justified.
Today most financial publications believe Murdoch got Myspace for a bargain.
bargain? he got it for a steal. Even sumner redstone (notoriously suspicious of the web "hmm what is that nuisiance stealing from my billions??") said it was worth 1.5B -- conversations with Michael Eisner.
Yeah, but we're not talking about people here. We're talking about one guy, who possibly did a stupid thing by buying it. If someone mistook glass shards for diamonds and bought them for $10k, it doesn't mean the glass shards are worth $10k.
One guy who wouldn't have paid so much if there weren't other people offering similar amounts. My point is that you can't pick an arbitrary amount ($58 Million) for the valuation - but that this amount is always dependent on other people.
The problem with your example is that we all have limited knowledge about any given business transaction. Assuming ten people were standing around bidding on little rocks thinking they are diamonds, for that moment (to those people) they are worth $10k. When they have more knowledge (i.e. that this is glass and not diamonds) then the worth of those rocks drops. So the worth varies based on the knowledge in the market and valuations of others.
Now in any given market if one has more knowledge about a good or service one might be able to say that a good or service is over valued. For instance, I have always believed Myspace to be over valued. However, this realization does not give one the ability to pick a number out of the air and state that it is a correct valuation.
"I can guarantee that you won't go in the order or at the pace you expected. You will need to adapt the pace of the presentation to the needs of the VC."
-- This is something I can relate to based on our YC interview last year in Boston. We actually prepared a pitch thinking we'd actually have time to parrot it out. How wrong we were :) Well, at least we know what to expect if we get called again.
