The way I read it, the post primarily advocates a focus on being sustainable and profitable rather than optimizing for a VC raise. You said as much yourself in the recent TC article on Referly's seed round, no?
As the common wisdom goes, the best way to raise money is to not need it. Whether you decide to take funding at that point to accelerate your growth is up to you.
While looking to raise capital and "go big or go home" is perhaps a good barometer of desired impact, I don't think it necessarily correlates to actual impact. From personal experience, there are plenty of companies that go through accelerators or do the "startup" route that are completely optimized for a flashy launch and raising a few $MM. Even if they do eventually prove to be disruptive and earn an exit, the definition of "impact" is a separate discussion, and, I would argue, not solely based on sale price or how many users you've obtained.
I like the concept - a good addition would be to provide reporting and/or policing tools if you find a stolen bike (notify the local PD perhaps, or automatically send CL a takedown notice). It seems like Craigslist would be the first place you go if your (nicer) bike gets stolen, so as it stands, the Racklove search engine doesn't provide a lot of extra value.
As someone who works to provide better access to bikes via bike-sharing, I've seen that it's actually an incredible way to prevent bike theft. Sharing systems are over-engineered to the point where they're very difficult to mess with. However, deterrence for personal bike theft is an interesting problem. Despite the prevalence of bikes, nobody has found a method to secure or track them that's better than a standard U-lock. We're close to the point where GPS units could be installed on many bikes at reasonable cost, but it's still not easy. Something to work towards, or perhaps there's an easier solution out there.
I really enjoyed your presentation for that reason - you did a great job of building a narrative that wasn't exactly "We're X for Y in a $Z billion market". I did consider your HN vote count and Kickstarter numbers similar to an "up and to the right" graph, but is your distinction that you only displayed them, and didn't weave them into the pitch?
In the beginning things at GT were quiet because we didn't do a good job of marketing, but they're picking up. We've seen 30% monthly usage growth since we launched, and that growth has continued into summer, despite 1/3rd the normal campus population. Even the busiest bike systems in the world only have about 30% of their fleet in use at any given time - any more than that just becomes chaos.
It's difficult to offer helmets with each bike trip, but we do offer ways for users to get subsidized helmets, and are always working to educate and improve safety. As the system becomes more popular, we hope users consider keeping helmets at their desk or at home for easy access.
We've watched this team expand their footprint and execute on a complex hardware product in a very short amount of time. Package logistics is a huge problem to solve, but if anyone can do it, they can. Congrats guys!
We do weld the locks to some of our bikes depending on the intended environment. No matter what the method, the attachment is at least semi-permanent and can't be removed by normal means. Since our system can be fitted to multiple bikes, we can easily incorporate shaft drive or a different frame if people want them. Our Biria frames are very sturdy and people love them!
HN isn't letting me comment on the reply to this, but in response - our systems can be subsidized if necessary. We're a B2B business right now, and sell to organizations that own/operate the programs. We're working on piloting our own consumer programs in places that are ripe to support them. Ultimately, bike sharing needs to make financial sense in one way or another, and we're confident our system does that.
Helmet use is an issue we take very seriously. Fortunately, safety has been excellent for US programs, but we try to make sure everyone has access to the right equipment and education.
We do require users to sign a waiver saying they understand the risks. Ultimately, it comes down to culture - grabbing a helmet needs to become as natural as putting on your seatbelt or grabbing your coat.
Hear hear! Things are changing for the better. Over the last 5 years, bike use has more than tripled in a lot of major cities. Bike sharing has the power to completely transform culture - Boston went from being rated the worst city for biking in the US to one of the top 5 after Hubway's launch.
Spinlister is awesome. Eventually we hope to use our technology to automate personal bike rentals, just as Getaround does for cars. We'd love to talk to either of them about a partnership!
We do take payment info on signup. Right now programs are localized so we set up different websites for each, but we hope to link everything together in the future. You can see an example at http://gt.viacycle.com
You're correct that like many new ideas, bike sharing has had it's growing pains. However, recent data suggests that it's more effective than many would have predicted.
Your article on Velib is from 2009, and while they did have a lot of theft early on, it was due to a design flaw. They've since fixed the problem and recently celebrated their 100 millionth ride. Also, theft hasn't been a problem at all in the US:
A $1K bike may seem expensive, but they have a lot of differences from your local $100 Walmart cruiser. Our bikes are meant to last for years while being used 24/7 and withstanding any weather. They're also hardened against theft.
The financials are good as well. DC breaks even on operations, while Denver has made a sizable profit:
Their main issue is high capital cost, which viaCycle solves. We can do a large city programs or let organizations install bikes on a grass-roots level, so you don't need to splash out $5+M to have reliable transportation.
Thanks for the feedback. It can seem complicated because we provide the billing platform but allow our customers to set pricing. Cities typically charge a monthly or annual membership, while companies usually provide bikes to their employees for free. Depending on who's operating your local program, you usually only have to choose between a few options.
Absolutely! Dynamic pricing is something we're really excited about. It's still a young idea, but even large systems like Velib have implemented simple incentives for people who ride against traffic flow. Since our bikes always know where they are, we can be much more proactive about balancing each system.
Edit: a few of us did graduate transportation research as well, your work sounds cool. Is it published anywhere?
Definitely true. Redistribution is always a hurdle, though with viaCycle's realtime data, we can do some very cool things with incentives and pricing to help the system balance itself.
Bixi takes a lot of parking spots partly because finding space for large stations is difficult. By using existing bike racks, we can often put in bikes without modifying anything. Plus, although parking is lucrative, replacing room for one car with 10 bikes that 100 people can use is a good trade in our book.
Getting the details right on individual CSS elements is one of things that always falls to the back of the priority queue. Easel seems like a fantastic option for quickly polishing up buttons, forms, etc, which adds up to a much better UI over time. Great job guys!
I'm the CEO of a startup company that creates a different type of bike sharing technology, viaCycle: www.viacycle.com
While you're right that bike sharing doesn't make sense for all commuters, the idea that these systems are inefficient is actually incorrect. Yes, you have a capital outlay to set the program up - just like you do for every subway, bus system, and public road in the U.S. Often, these outlays are taxpayer funded. However, once a bike system is running, it's cheaper than almost any other form of transit. Capital Bikeshare in DC recovered almost all of it's operating expenses last year. B-Cycle Denver pulled a profit. Compare that to the T or almost any bus/metro agency in the country, which usually hover around 30-40% cost recovery.
Hubway or NiceRide might not work for your situation, but it's effective and affordable for a whole lot of people.
As the common wisdom goes, the best way to raise money is to not need it. Whether you decide to take funding at that point to accelerate your growth is up to you.
While looking to raise capital and "go big or go home" is perhaps a good barometer of desired impact, I don't think it necessarily correlates to actual impact. From personal experience, there are plenty of companies that go through accelerators or do the "startup" route that are completely optimized for a flashy launch and raising a few $MM. Even if they do eventually prove to be disruptive and earn an exit, the definition of "impact" is a separate discussion, and, I would argue, not solely based on sale price or how many users you've obtained.