Tixe, “Exit” Spelled Backwards: Co-Founder Matt Brezina Has Also Left Xobni(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Tixe, “Exit” Spelled Backwards: Co-Founder Matt Brezina Has Also Left Xobni
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/16/brezina-xobni-out/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29
24 comments
Well, three startups have spun out from employees who left, two acquired and (shameless plug ahead..) one making revenue from day 1 and growing like gangbusters.
http://www.remail.com/ (employee #1)
http://www.appninjas.com/ (employee #3)
http://www.dropcam.com/ (employees #2 and #7)
I dunno if that was the plan though ;)
http://www.remail.com/ (employee #1)
http://www.appninjas.com/ (employee #3)
http://www.dropcam.com/ (employees #2 and #7)
I dunno if that was the plan though ;)
Probably forced by VCs. No point is liquidating at that price range, doesn't make an impact on their fund.
That seems too simple. Why did they get so close to an acquisition if the VCs were steadfast against the sale?
The TC article implies the Xobni team pulled out, over concerns about the product & team's future within Microsoft. If that's true, I'm confused as to why they built an Outlook plugin to begin with.
The TC article implies the Xobni team pulled out, over concerns about the product & team's future within Microsoft. If that's true, I'm confused as to why they built an Outlook plugin to begin with.
[deleted]
Then what was the VCs plan after turning down Microsoft's offer? Making > $20MM selling $40 software seems pretty unlikely.
Depending on who you are, wanting more money may not imply you have a plan.
Why does that seem unlikely? That's 500k copies, which is a reasonably high bar, but not at all hard to imagine.
Even less-- Building a $20m company doesn't take $20m in revenue. You can see 5-10x revenue for a software company-- more if there is strategic value.
Well, VCs seem to have thought well enough of it to put in almost 20 million after the Microsoft deal was turned down.
It was always a strange company, driving more by marketing than by product. I dislike these type of companies that fall into the vulture grasps of people looking for a massive exit. It's just another form of speculation - with the value being created just a side-effect of the financial games.
driving more by marketing than by product
I distinctly recall people being excited by the product. Admittedly I haven't been paying attention since the early days, but you did say "always".
I distinctly recall people being excited by the product. Admittedly I haven't been paying attention since the early days, but you did say "always".
"I distinctly recall people being excited by the product."
I think it's more that people were excited by the promises about the product, and what it could have been. I've tried it 4 or 5 times since it launched, and always uninstalled within a few days. And I'm a heavy Outlook user, searching mail is a serious pain point for me.
They too often focus on 'non-corporate' (basically, useless) features: social network integration, counting who emailed you the most and other stats, ... while the actual UI was hard to use and not in line with the rest of Outlook, searching only selected folders was only included after a long time (I don't want to search my RSS and mailing list folders, I don't think I'm special in that), sorting/filtering/search in search was unintuitive to use, ... It always felt like the features were put in to look nice in a marketing pitch, and that nobody at the company actually actively used the product. I guess that's not the case but it felt that way.
I think it's more that people were excited by the promises about the product, and what it could have been. I've tried it 4 or 5 times since it launched, and always uninstalled within a few days. And I'm a heavy Outlook user, searching mail is a serious pain point for me.
They too often focus on 'non-corporate' (basically, useless) features: social network integration, counting who emailed you the most and other stats, ... while the actual UI was hard to use and not in line with the rest of Outlook, searching only selected folders was only included after a long time (I don't want to search my RSS and mailing list folders, I don't think I'm special in that), sorting/filtering/search in search was unintuitive to use, ... It always felt like the features were put in to look nice in a marketing pitch, and that nobody at the company actually actively used the product. I guess that's not the case but it felt that way.
Don't forget the "paid only" auto complete (that supposedly is a bug but I've noticed it on other installations): http://community.xobni.com/xobni/topics/dont_try_to_sell_me_...
I can't help but wonder if this is a VC/Founder dispute. I also can't help but believe that, in some way, the MS deal is a factor in this.
Best of luck Matt, I'm sure you'll go on to do more great things
With news like these, I always wonder about the story behind the story.
Back when I wore my journalist hat I once got curious about one of these stories. I did the leg work and tracked down sources and dug up financial statements. I had imagined some tale of boardroom intrigue and secret back-room deals, but really it was just big egos and greed and inexperience. It was kinda depressing. I never wrote the story.
Usually, it has to do with someones ego.
All I know is that Adam, Gabor, Matt et al built a LOT of value for Xobni before they left. Good on them and good luck.
[deleted]
What was Xobni's plan after turning down Microsoft's offer? Making > $20MM selling $40 software seems pretty unlikely.