Mint founder on Silicon Valley(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Mint founder on Silicon Valley
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/14/the-value-of-techcrunch50-mint-acquired-by-intuit-for-170m-two-years-after-winning-tc40/
14 comments
While I can see where he is coming from(and have myself grown tired of the social media stuff), his tone is kind of condescending.
Cool he sold his "real problem" startup; but to suggest YouTube, facebook aren't solving "real problems" is interesting in the least.
Cool he sold his "real problem" startup; but to suggest YouTube, facebook aren't solving "real problems" is interesting in the least.
If I woke up tomorrow and one of those sites was down for good, Mint is the one I'd miss the most.
Your comment isn't really useful :/ you're obviously an outlier. Most people would go insane if they couldn't access youtube or facebook.
Social media, music, video are real problems that people have, and need solutions to. The problem comes when a startup doesn't really solve anything new and just copies existing stuff.
Social media, music, video are real problems that people have, and need solutions to. The problem comes when a startup doesn't really solve anything new and just copies existing stuff.
I guess you and I have differing opinions on what "real problems" are. Personal finance, yup. Facebook feed, not so much.
Out of people who use Mint and who use YouTube, I'd bet many would pick Mint over YouTube if they had to pick one.
Honestly, if youtube or facebook vanished, and in this magical world, no one propped up a replacement. People would moan for a week, and then they'd go back to the same things they did before YouTube existed, with no change to anything practical in their life. People wouldn't go insane, they'd simple find other ways to waste time.
Out of people who use Mint and who use YouTube, I'd bet many would pick Mint over YouTube if they had to pick one.
Honestly, if youtube or facebook vanished, and in this magical world, no one propped up a replacement. People would moan for a week, and then they'd go back to the same things they did before YouTube existed, with no change to anything practical in their life. People wouldn't go insane, they'd simple find other ways to waste time.
Exactly. Vimeo & Hulu replace all the value of YouTube. It is commodity free video hosting, there is no community at YouTube.
Facebook is useful for me, but I wouldn't pay for it if I had to.
I'd gladly pay for Mint.
Mint has nothing to do with taxes like axod says. It is about budgeting and tracking expenditures.
I used to get a statement in the mail each month from 4 different institutions related to bank accounts, credit cards, and investments. (Or check online at 4 different places). Then I would reconcile them with my checkbook / some pile of receipts to double check.
Now I go to one place 1-2 times a week and check against my receipts right away. It never builds up and takes significantly less time.
It also helps budget and gives you data to figure out where you are spending your money.
If you are not one of those people who has money to keep track of or you don't balance your checkbook, then sure the value is hard to see. But if you actually take care of your money it is immensely helpful and saves me time and money.
Facebook is useful for me, but I wouldn't pay for it if I had to.
I'd gladly pay for Mint.
Mint has nothing to do with taxes like axod says. It is about budgeting and tracking expenditures.
I used to get a statement in the mail each month from 4 different institutions related to bank accounts, credit cards, and investments. (Or check online at 4 different places). Then I would reconcile them with my checkbook / some pile of receipts to double check.
Now I go to one place 1-2 times a week and check against my receipts right away. It never builds up and takes significantly less time.
It also helps budget and gives you data to figure out where you are spending your money.
If you are not one of those people who has money to keep track of or you don't balance your checkbook, then sure the value is hard to see. But if you actually take care of your money it is immensely helpful and saves me time and money.
>> "Mint has nothing to do with taxes like axod says."
>> "If you are not one of those people who has money to keep track of or you don't balance your checkbook, then sure the value is hard to see."
I was really trying to work out why Mint seems to be valued highly in the US. I can see some of the differences now.
The idea of having a 'checkbook' is incredibly quaint to most people in the UK. No one uses checks anymore here, not for 10-20 years, we're used to free banking, online account management, direct debits/transfers, etc. The majority of people have direct debits (Automated bill payments) setup for all their bills. They have their pay paid automatically into their bank by transfer (All free of course).
Banks provide all the tools we need to manage our money for free generally. Some online banking tools even allow you to access other banks that you may have accounts with (With your approval), so you can see all your accounts from one interface, and get a better picture.
I still think the added burden of having to file your own taxes would make you more likely to need something like mint, but it's probably more the extreme differences in consumer banking that's the bigger reason.
If I had to pay my bills by check, I'd go insane.
>> "If you are not one of those people who has money to keep track of or you don't balance your checkbook, then sure the value is hard to see."
I was really trying to work out why Mint seems to be valued highly in the US. I can see some of the differences now.
The idea of having a 'checkbook' is incredibly quaint to most people in the UK. No one uses checks anymore here, not for 10-20 years, we're used to free banking, online account management, direct debits/transfers, etc. The majority of people have direct debits (Automated bill payments) setup for all their bills. They have their pay paid automatically into their bank by transfer (All free of course).
Banks provide all the tools we need to manage our money for free generally. Some online banking tools even allow you to access other banks that you may have accounts with (With your approval), so you can see all your accounts from one interface, and get a better picture.
I still think the added burden of having to file your own taxes would make you more likely to need something like mint, but it's probably more the extreme differences in consumer banking that's the bigger reason.
If I had to pay my bills by check, I'd go insane.
I don't write checks either. I've written 2 checks in the last 12 months. One for a used car and one for a bike. Both from private sellers so they didn't take debit cards.
I use my debit and credit cards all day. I never even use cash, primarily so that it all gets categorized automatically by Mint and I'm too lazy to do it for cash by hand.
But in my mind a debit card is the same as checks.
Of course I pay my bills online and have bank access online (you must to use Mint).
The difference I guess is that I'm using multiple companies. Why load up Bank of America, Vanguard, WSFS, Wachovia, Capitol One and Fidelity's websites and use 6 different interfaces on 6 different websites when I can use one unified one?
You seem to have an anti-US bias that you think we are stupid or something. It is a question of how you treat your money, not the tools available.
And you are horribly mistaken on the "burden of filing your own taxes", which again, has nothing to do with Mint. 99% of the work for taxes is done by the HR department at your office and by a tax accountant. I just hand the appropriate papers to the right people, and sign it at the end. Total timer per year: an hour at most. Maybe you shouldn't comment on things you obviously have no knowledge of.
I use my debit and credit cards all day. I never even use cash, primarily so that it all gets categorized automatically by Mint and I'm too lazy to do it for cash by hand.
But in my mind a debit card is the same as checks.
Of course I pay my bills online and have bank access online (you must to use Mint).
The difference I guess is that I'm using multiple companies. Why load up Bank of America, Vanguard, WSFS, Wachovia, Capitol One and Fidelity's websites and use 6 different interfaces on 6 different websites when I can use one unified one?
You seem to have an anti-US bias that you think we are stupid or something. It is a question of how you treat your money, not the tools available.
And you are horribly mistaken on the "burden of filing your own taxes", which again, has nothing to do with Mint. 99% of the work for taxes is done by the HR department at your office and by a tax accountant. I just hand the appropriate papers to the right people, and sign it at the end. Total timer per year: an hour at most. Maybe you shouldn't comment on things you obviously have no knowledge of.
>> "Maybe you shouldn't comment on things you obviously have no knowledge of."
Then I wouldn't be able to comment on anything at all! :/
Point taken, maybe things have changed in the US since I was there. My understanding of things was that people still got paid by check, paid bills by check etc, did not get free banking, and paid 'convenience fees' to pay things online etc.
Then I wouldn't be able to comment on anything at all! :/
Point taken, maybe things have changed in the US since I was there. My understanding of things was that people still got paid by check, paid bills by check etc, did not get free banking, and paid 'convenience fees' to pay things online etc.
What you describe sounds like the US as well ... the power of Mint is in consolidating all of your accounts.
Finance is important, but Facebook is such an essential networking tool, professionally and personally, that I completely disagree with you. Facebook solves a multitude of "real problems" -- just because some people "waste time" on it does not mean it isn't a serious tool. Without Facebook, for instance, I simply would not know nearly as much about the lives of my old friends and professional acquaintances -- this alone makes it very practical.
Not only this, but Facebook helps me organize the many people I meet each day, lets me easily keep in touch with people I care about, lets me know who is in each city I visit so I can arrange meetups, facilitates much of my social life (invites/mixers/who's going to what), provides introductions, etc.
Mint did not even exist two years ago, and people dealt with their finances then just fine. The difference between using Mint and not (in finance) is the same as the difference in using Facebook or not (in networking), in my opinion.
Not only this, but Facebook helps me organize the many people I meet each day, lets me easily keep in touch with people I care about, lets me know who is in each city I visit so I can arrange meetups, facilitates much of my social life (invites/mixers/who's going to what), provides introductions, etc.
Mint did not even exist two years ago, and people dealt with their finances then just fine. The difference between using Mint and not (in finance) is the same as the difference in using Facebook or not (in networking), in my opinion.
Perhaps some of it is the fact that in the US you have to file your own taxes, so there's much greater emphasis on accounting.
Maybe that's why it's valued more there :/ (In the UK I'm not sure most people would see the value in it).
Facebook+youtube aren't just about wasting time. They're about communication and sharing information, which as social beings, is pretty important to most of us.
Maybe that's why it's valued more there :/ (In the UK I'm not sure most people would see the value in it).
Facebook+youtube aren't just about wasting time. They're about communication and sharing information, which as social beings, is pretty important to most of us.
Out of people who use Mint and who use YouTube
"Your comment isn't really useful :/ you're obviously an outlier. Most people would go insane if they couldn't access youtube or facebook."
Facebook has 200 million users or so. The world has over 6 billion people. Hence, only 3% or so of the world's population uses Facebook. Moreover, Facebook is basically a rolodex. If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, people would use email instead. They would have no other choice.
Let's talk of real problems. Over 1,000 million people live in extreme poverty. That's 5x the total number of Facebook users. So you talk of people going insane if they lost Facebook, and I find that extremely distasteful when 100s of millions of parents everyday struggle to feed their children. I am not being sensationalist, I am just putting things in perspective. Americans whine when unemployment reaches record levels and they can no longer afford Starbucks coffee everyday, but guess what, some people have real problems, like lack of food, lack of potable water, drought, disease, war, etc. I suggest you take some months off and go backpack around this world to see how fortunate we spoilt Americans / Western Europeans truly are...
Facebook has 200 million users or so. The world has over 6 billion people. Hence, only 3% or so of the world's population uses Facebook. Moreover, Facebook is basically a rolodex. If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, people would use email instead. They would have no other choice.
Let's talk of real problems. Over 1,000 million people live in extreme poverty. That's 5x the total number of Facebook users. So you talk of people going insane if they lost Facebook, and I find that extremely distasteful when 100s of millions of parents everyday struggle to feed their children. I am not being sensationalist, I am just putting things in perspective. Americans whine when unemployment reaches record levels and they can no longer afford Starbucks coffee everyday, but guess what, some people have real problems, like lack of food, lack of potable water, drought, disease, war, etc. I suggest you take some months off and go backpack around this world to see how fortunate we spoilt Americans / Western Europeans truly are...
You are confusing a "real problem" from an entrepreneur's point of view, and a "real problem" from a global social perspective.
I have been to Africa. I have fed the hungry, healed the sick, and vaccinated children myself with my own two hands. Interestingly enough, I wouldn't be in contact with the friends I made over there without -Facebook-. So don't tell me that Facebook "is basically a rolodex", because for me it isn't.
I have been to Africa. I have fed the hungry, healed the sick, and vaccinated children myself with my own two hands. Interestingly enough, I wouldn't be in contact with the friends I made over there without -Facebook-. So don't tell me that Facebook "is basically a rolodex", because for me it isn't.
Good point. But I stand by what I wrote before. The comment I replied to stated that:
"Most people would go insane if they couldn't access youtube or facebook. Social media, music, video are real problems that people have, and need solutions to."
Hence, it's about people's problems, not entrepreneurs' problems. Of course, it all depends what we mean by "people" and "problems". Fortunately, most Americans do not suffer from Malaria, Dengue, Cholera... most Americans are able to feed their children and have access to potable water. Same for Western Europeans. So, if by "people" we mean the richest 5% of the world's population, then social media may be a problem indeed. But what about the other 95%? Are they untermenschen of some sort?
"This is HN. Let's not discuss that", I hear you reply. Well, yes and no. We talk so much about software, but (personally) I would like to see some more diversity here on HN. I would like to hear more stories of some inventor who comes up with a cheap desalination technology, or some grad student who find out a really cheap way of diagnosing certain diseases. These may not make a huge change on the top 5% of the world's population, but it could have a huge impact elsewhere. There are markets for cheap, efficient technologies and solutions, but there aren't that many incentives. Facebook and Twitter are luxuries. Let's try to keep that in mind for the sake of keeping our feet firmly on the ground...
"Most people would go insane if they couldn't access youtube or facebook. Social media, music, video are real problems that people have, and need solutions to."
Hence, it's about people's problems, not entrepreneurs' problems. Of course, it all depends what we mean by "people" and "problems". Fortunately, most Americans do not suffer from Malaria, Dengue, Cholera... most Americans are able to feed their children and have access to potable water. Same for Western Europeans. So, if by "people" we mean the richest 5% of the world's population, then social media may be a problem indeed. But what about the other 95%? Are they untermenschen of some sort?
"This is HN. Let's not discuss that", I hear you reply. Well, yes and no. We talk so much about software, but (personally) I would like to see some more diversity here on HN. I would like to hear more stories of some inventor who comes up with a cheap desalination technology, or some grad student who find out a really cheap way of diagnosing certain diseases. These may not make a huge change on the top 5% of the world's population, but it could have a huge impact elsewhere. There are markets for cheap, efficient technologies and solutions, but there aren't that many incentives. Facebook and Twitter are luxuries. Let's try to keep that in mind for the sake of keeping our feet firmly on the ground...
Look, these are worthy causes you refer to, nobody disputes that. but you're basically presenting a a kind of zero-sum fallacy - there is only so much labor power available, disease and poverty are humanity's most pressing problems, therefore all other activity should halt while those are tackled.
This is a naive viewpoint. I am not going to argue that Facebook is somehow better than a cure for malaria, but the problem facebook solves - 'how can I efficiently keep in touch with the many different people I know?' - is important enough for individuals to find it very useful, and the network effects, plus what we learn about large-scale social networks, may well turn out to have broader implications. For example, a recent CDC study drew the conclusion that the most effective way to handle the current swine flu problem might be to target vaccinations towards young (< 40) adults who are the most likely to spread the disease, as opposed to those who are generally stereotyped to be the most vulnerable. In fact, the CDC have been employing social media in order to disseminate information about the flu, which has proved more economical then the usual strategy of news conferences and advertising. This was hardly part of Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook strategy, but it turns out his product is becoming useful for such tasks.
Youtube seems even more flippant than facebook, devoted as it is to sharing video for entertainment purposes. On the other hand, if I wish to learn about malaria or some other serious problem, YouTube offers a way to access video about subject almost immediately. Putting such stuff on TV reaches a wider audience than any given YouTube video, but by necessity a passive audience and only at a given moment in time, rather than when someone is motivated and active enough to seek out that information. Again, not the goal of YouTube, but such a useful fringe benefit that we now take online video availability as as essential factor in future internet growth...and indeed, MIT are using YT as part of their strategy for OCW. One person's luxury can easily turn out to be someone else's utility.
Frankly, I think HN is quite good about propagating news of innovative non-computer hacks as well. Dean Kamen's water purification system was recently the subject of extensive discussion, and the criteria for what constitutes hacking is already pretty loose - tech-related, cheap and innovative generally qualify.
This is a naive viewpoint. I am not going to argue that Facebook is somehow better than a cure for malaria, but the problem facebook solves - 'how can I efficiently keep in touch with the many different people I know?' - is important enough for individuals to find it very useful, and the network effects, plus what we learn about large-scale social networks, may well turn out to have broader implications. For example, a recent CDC study drew the conclusion that the most effective way to handle the current swine flu problem might be to target vaccinations towards young (< 40) adults who are the most likely to spread the disease, as opposed to those who are generally stereotyped to be the most vulnerable. In fact, the CDC have been employing social media in order to disseminate information about the flu, which has proved more economical then the usual strategy of news conferences and advertising. This was hardly part of Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook strategy, but it turns out his product is becoming useful for such tasks.
Youtube seems even more flippant than facebook, devoted as it is to sharing video for entertainment purposes. On the other hand, if I wish to learn about malaria or some other serious problem, YouTube offers a way to access video about subject almost immediately. Putting such stuff on TV reaches a wider audience than any given YouTube video, but by necessity a passive audience and only at a given moment in time, rather than when someone is motivated and active enough to seek out that information. Again, not the goal of YouTube, but such a useful fringe benefit that we now take online video availability as as essential factor in future internet growth...and indeed, MIT are using YT as part of their strategy for OCW. One person's luxury can easily turn out to be someone else's utility.
Frankly, I think HN is quite good about propagating news of innovative non-computer hacks as well. Dean Kamen's water purification system was recently the subject of extensive discussion, and the criteria for what constitutes hacking is already pretty loose - tech-related, cheap and innovative generally qualify.
I think teej is arguing the exact opposite of what you interpreted his comment as saying.
Yes, there are a lot of people who are ignorant about how good their circumstances are relative to most of the world's people.
But how does being judgemental towards the ignorant help the unfortunate?
But how does being judgemental towards the ignorant help the unfortunate?
"But how does being judgemental towards the ignorant help the unfortunate?"
That's a really good point. I think it's not a matter of helping the unfortunate, but a matter of not insulting the unfortunate. I was fortunate to have been born in a relatively rich country. Others were less fortunate. I may not have the power to change things, but at least acknowledging the bigger problems, prioritizing them and putting things in perspective is the at least respectful. Someone who's miserable about Facebook's server outage is, basically, implying someone who is miserable because his son is dying of some preventable disease and he can't afford the healthcare...
That's a really good point. I think it's not a matter of helping the unfortunate, but a matter of not insulting the unfortunate. I was fortunate to have been born in a relatively rich country. Others were less fortunate. I may not have the power to change things, but at least acknowledging the bigger problems, prioritizing them and putting things in perspective is the at least respectful. Someone who's miserable about Facebook's server outage is, basically, implying someone who is miserable because his son is dying of some preventable disease and he can't afford the healthcare...
>> "Let's talk of real problems. Over 1,000 million people live in extreme poverty."
Lets not. This is hacker news.
Lets not. This is hacker news.
Please! You are the one who called lack of Facebook a "real problem". I merely pointed out that there are actual real problems. Sure, I agree that this is HN and that this is NOT the place to discuss actual real problems (the truly real problems cannot be solved by software), but your reply was rather unintelligent and unimaginative. You used to do better than that...
Precisely my point. What is a "real problem" varies from person to person. Me, I'm not even on Mint. But I couldn't go without facebook.
Note I never said facebook was the "biggest" real problem or even one of the biggest. That is the poster's gross distortion of my post to strengthen his argument.
Note I never said facebook was the "biggest" real problem or even one of the biggest. That is the poster's gross distortion of my post to strengthen his argument.
Sean Ellis has said that a startup has achieved product/market fit when >40% of its visitors would be 'very disappointed' if the product were no longer available. http://startup-marketing.com/the-startup-pyramid/
I like the easy access to videos that Youtube provides as much as the next guy, but to think that Youtube and facebook are on the utility scale anywhere near where Mint is is also "interesting". Youtube and facebook are much closer to entertainment and time wasting, at least from the user standpoint, than they are to "real problems". Obviously, businesses can get much more "real problem solving" out of Youtube and facebook (at least in terms of marketing), but that is not a significant subset of their users.
They are not problems as such. youtube/facebook are more on the entertainment side of things. Nothing wrong with that........most of the money is in entertainment.
When I think of solving "real problems", I think of:
- curing cancer
- cheap water purification
- vaccines for tropical diseases (the U.S. / European pharma companies have very little incentive to work on them)
- energy-efficient desalination
- energy-efficient computing systems
- efficient solar panels and cheap fuel cells
- easy access to high-quality learning materials (MIT OCW rocks)
and you think of YouTube, Facebook. Do you want to include Twitter, too? For Christ's sake, the "social media" virus has infected a lot of minds here on HN. Let's put things this way: 5,000 people die everyday all over the world of preventable water diseases, and you're talking of social media as a real problem?
- curing cancer
- cheap water purification
- vaccines for tropical diseases (the U.S. / European pharma companies have very little incentive to work on them)
- energy-efficient desalination
- energy-efficient computing systems
- efficient solar panels and cheap fuel cells
- easy access to high-quality learning materials (MIT OCW rocks)
and you think of YouTube, Facebook. Do you want to include Twitter, too? For Christ's sake, the "social media" virus has infected a lot of minds here on HN. Let's put things this way: 5,000 people die everyday all over the world of preventable water diseases, and you're talking of social media as a real problem?
You are completely distorting my point. It's like if I said I love chocolate, you'll say "OMG the things you should really love is your family blabla."
Indeed. You can love chocolate and your family. Just like you can view facebook, mint AND curing cancer as "real problems".
Indeed. You can love chocolate and your family. Just like you can view facebook, mint AND curing cancer as "real problems".
An outsider who accidentally finds HN will probably think this is a community of slightly emotional retarded, detached, autistic nerds living in a complete fantasy world where the problems are server outages
I'd hope so. This is not a save-the-world forum. It's Hacker News. We do think more about server problems than cancer when we are on here. It does not mean we consider server problems to be a bigger problem than cancer.
My original post was about relative use of Mint vs. Facebook. You're making it facebook vs. cancer. A more appropriate argument would be facebook/mint vs. cancer which is a completely valid debate(except I'll probably end up agreeing with you wholeheartedly)--just not for this thread.
I'd hope so. This is not a save-the-world forum. It's Hacker News. We do think more about server problems than cancer when we are on here. It does not mean we consider server problems to be a bigger problem than cancer.
My original post was about relative use of Mint vs. Facebook. You're making it facebook vs. cancer. A more appropriate argument would be facebook/mint vs. cancer which is a completely valid debate(except I'll probably end up agreeing with you wholeheartedly)--just not for this thread.
So, Facebook is to chocolate what curing cancer is to one's family. That's an interesting view. I get your original point, and I still believe a more careful choice of words would have been more appropriate...
An outsider who accidentally finds HN will probably think this is a community of slightly emotional retarded, detached, autistic nerds living in a complete fantasy world where the problems are server outages and the discussions circle around social media and childish Python Vs. Ruby drivel. I am a hardware guy and sometimes I think HN'ers have lost their sense of reality. Imagine what a more normal person would think...
An outsider who accidentally finds HN will probably think this is a community of slightly emotional retarded, detached, autistic nerds living in a complete fantasy world where the problems are server outages and the discussions circle around social media and childish Python Vs. Ruby drivel. I am a hardware guy and sometimes I think HN'ers have lost their sense of reality. Imagine what a more normal person would think...
I'm hoping a more normal person would simply not be interested in most of the topics that appear here. Another term for normal is that mythical average person, who by definition of average does not share your well beyond average and deep interest in subject X.
Having taken a brief look at your submission, I find them great, and hope no outsiders are voting them down because they are too technical.
Having taken a brief look at your submission, I find them great, and hope no outsiders are voting them down because they are too technical.
I think the parent, and OP were talking about "real problems" within the realms of software. Which is what most of us do.
Online communication is an invaluable net win for everyone. Social media is just one type of communication but a valuable force for good.
Well done for saying we should cure cancer though.
Online communication is an invaluable net win for everyone. Social media is just one type of communication but a valuable force for good.
Well done for saying we should cure cancer though.
"Well done for saying we should cure cancer though."
That was cliché, I admit. In any case, cancer is only one problem. Cancer is a very difficult problem that kills many people. There are diseases that kill as many or more people than cancer, and that are easier to fight than cancer, but that no one pays attention to...
Why is that? Because cancer kills rich people too, while some diseases only kill poor people. Poor people cannot pay for vaccines, or top-notch healthcare, or even basic healthcare actually... so there's no market there. Bill Gates wrote all about it, so I am not claiming to have found anything new. Thanfully, Gates has the money to do something about it, while I barely have the money to pay my rent (I live in California, after all).
That was cliché, I admit. In any case, cancer is only one problem. Cancer is a very difficult problem that kills many people. There are diseases that kill as many or more people than cancer, and that are easier to fight than cancer, but that no one pays attention to...
Why is that? Because cancer kills rich people too, while some diseases only kill poor people. Poor people cannot pay for vaccines, or top-notch healthcare, or even basic healthcare actually... so there's no market there. Bill Gates wrote all about it, so I am not claiming to have found anything new. Thanfully, Gates has the money to do something about it, while I barely have the money to pay my rent (I live in California, after all).
[deleted]
Wow, one line out of the whole story mentions TechCrunch, and they run that as the headline.
And it's slimy how TC implies that because Mint launched at TC50, it caused Mint to be acquired.
And it's slimy how TC implies that because Mint launched at TC50, it caused Mint to be acquired.
Yeah I got the same weird feeling when I read that headline, but honestly, getting that type of coverage probably helped them considerably. It seems like most successful companies have the right proportion of hard work and luck.
Sure, good coverage helps, but with a good product and good execution, they'll get it from anyone. If the formula is good idea + hard work + good execution + coverage from TC, you can easily replace "coverage from TC" with "coverage from NYTimes", and still be successful. TC didn't cause Mint to be acquired, so they shouldn't pretend they helped.
Well, they won $50,000 at TC50, it's hard to get a better launch day than that.
[deleted]
It's honest for TechCrunch to broadcast their own sincere celebration in Mint's success. It would be suspect if TechCrunch did not emphasize its own participation in Mint's headline success in a TechCrunch headline. TechCrunch doesn't deserve to be called slimy for this.
This story does seem to gloss over the VC piece, to me it read like they started with no money and got to $170 million without investment. Didn't they raise 30+ million?
it sounds like they they raised a little over $30M, and the last $14M of that was @ a $140M valuation.
Five rounds of funding totaling $31.8M: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/mint.
What he doesn't mention is how much money Mint was making (If it was making any at all).
Plenty of bubble valley hyping up about how it couldn't have happened anywhere else etc etc. Bleugh.
Plenty of bubble valley hyping up about how it couldn't have happened anywhere else etc etc. Bleugh.
Here’s to the Mint team, from New Zealand, from France, Tunisia, Armenia, Ukraine, Russia, Canada, Greece, and all over the U.S.
Hm. So, they got their start in the valley and then hired people all over the world? It reads like an ode to the valley absolutely till the last paragraph...
Hm. So, they got their start in the valley and then hired people all over the world? It reads like an ode to the valley absolutely till the last paragraph...
i read it as ppl from those countries are on the Mint team and live in the valley.
Perhaps the value of the story is that it pays to have your headquarters and founders in the valley. Your programmers, content writers, etc, can be anywhere. For many startups, having your labor outside the valley may be critical. Is this a trend?
excellent timing for the relentless techcrunch self-promotion machine...
Oh come on...
1. This was written by Mint's founder, not TC
2. This *is* a success story for TC
3. There's nothing wrong with self-promotion :)Hey, is there no room for snark about a snarky website? I've got a horse in the TC50 race, so it's great that he bills it as "The Value of TechCrunch", but isn't really about the value of Mint?
I'm with you Ryan, it is a success story for Techcrunch. I'm not a TC fan, but still not gonna let emotions get in the way of the facts.
Aaron Patzer also gave a talk at Duke that has some good advice for startup founders:
http://media.fuqua.duke.edu/Content/Groups/EES/2008/Patzer_3...
http://media.fuqua.duke.edu/Content/Groups/EES/2008/Patzer_3...
"We’ve attracted over 1.5 million users, found over $300 million in savings, managed $50 billion in assets, and helped people track nearly $200 billion in purchases."
I'm not sure I would sell - $170m seems rather low. Furthermore, they have so much room for expansion, which only will be crippled by working under a tax software company. They might be trying to automagically do your taxes for you, but they don't have enough relevant information without having it to be the same hassle as using the software.
I'm not sure I would sell - $170m seems rather low. Furthermore, they have so much room for expansion, which only will be crippled by working under a tax software company. They might be trying to automagically do your taxes for you, but they don't have enough relevant information without having it to be the same hassle as using the software.
I seem to be banned from TechCrunch and have to go through google cache if I really want to read something linked from HN. Still trying to decide if that's a good thing or not. It says:
TechCrunch is currently down for some scheduled maintenance. In the meantime, please check out the other sites on our network of blogs for the latest in tech news:
The above is followed by a list of links. Been this way for at least a week now.
TechCrunch is currently down for some scheduled maintenance. In the meantime, please check out the other sites on our network of blogs for the latest in tech news:
The above is followed by a list of links. Been this way for at least a week now.
[deleted]
I'm ignorant on how the TechCrunch50 conference works. Does TC have any ownership stake in mint?
No, they just won the $50k prize... but it seems like Arrington got some (advisor?) stock if you see the exchange between him, Calacanis and Aaron.
We were joking about getting the $50k grand prize back from TechCrunch50 2007. :-)
This is good advice for all aspiring entrepreneurs.