@VCBrags I think that's a bad faith take on @christophersaum point. These type of meetings offer you the ability to assess alignment with the founders as well.
They can read a deck but its missing a chance to ask strategic questions, align the pitch and see if their fund is beneficial.
@amarifields_ No warm intros. Unwritten rule of VC is most don't take cold intros or don't seriously review your pitch(respect to the ones that do though).
@zodattack Agreed, not the conventional bs and lies about "being better than ever" despite doing cost cutting. Also respect for not avoiding responsibility, they admit its a leadership and financial failure that got them here.
Alot of devs and players are rightfully skeptical of the failings of Microsoft.
I am genuinely hopeful that @asha_shar can right the ship and get them focusing on players and creating hits again. They could genuinely learn from Indies at this point.
When you work at a giant tech company, you realize they're often insincere about not wanting middle management and layers of bureaucracy. In practice they love micromanaged command and control structures; even if it strangles risk taking and creativity.
Indies can avoid it
I think the "Distribution vs Product" is the like the old "Nature vs Nurtured" argument.
Social sciences figured out it wasn't actually nature VERSUS nurtured, both are often equally important.
People who tell you distribution is all that matters want to become the next "Bud Light". A trash product that only survived on marketing until consumers got sick of it and switched to Modelo(better product).
Product is distribution and distribution is product. Good products get organic recommendations from users that your marketing budget cannot replicate. Bad products will get you negative publicity even the best "PR firm" can't hide forever.
Marketing AKA "distribution" will get you more attention and people trying the product but they will churn if its shit. Everyone who says "building is easy" is shipping slop. Building high quality products is not easy.
AI can help make you more productive but it won't ship a high quality product on its own without the design and technical capability to guide it and fix all the edge cases it handles poorly.
@vkrajacic AI in the hands of an expert coder who knows when to use it and when to code or design by hand is the happy medium IMO.
LLMs are still poorly trained on some problems where expertise is still needed e.g. graphics coding, high performance, gaming etc...
@vkrajacic There's something to be said about short term productivity versus quality in AI is like "native vs hybrid" apps.
The "Javascript" everywhere movement made it easier to ship but resulted in alot of bloat and bad UX.
See skype and alot of the slop Microsoft shipped into windows.
@zekramu Definitely. Valve is a role model for being an open and customer value driven business.
Open and modular systems(proton, linux, steam deck) can defeat closed source ones (windows and mac).
- Combat medicine in the military to software engineer as a FDE on Obamacare
- Went from intern to senior SWE in 3 years and became an open stack contributor at Rackspace
- Built and lead a high performing team from the ground up at Atlassian. Shipped high scale services that saved them millions while having the lowest lead times in the company.
@christophersaum Anthropic was started by Dario at 38, others were in the low to mid 30s.
There is some weird ageism against older founders by VCs that prefer young founders I find odd and misguided.
Younger and older founders can ship great things, we complement each other.
The founder in their 40s with taste and discernment is the new gentleman unicorn founder
Because there can be 100x to 1000x of them working at their beck and call via agents and software factories all the time
@PeterDAmbrosio Shipping new user requested features to prod today, super excited. I'm building simple and open backends for online games; The "Wordpress" of multiplayer games.