I’m no expert, but I would recommend build something—anything. This will test how the team thinks and works together creatively and ideas might come along in the process as pain points or aha moments.
Our target users are the ones who like to listen to radio and even like to call in. We are looking for content creators. As the content gets better we believe people will be more attracted to the product and the network effect takes place. That said we really believe that the platform allows for meaningful organized conversations. So once those start to happen en masse we think people will find it interesting and useful. As for your second q: People are not posting enough so we are working on that now!
Great question! That's like my worst nightmare. Although its a relatively "good" problem to have in the future (i.e. we have a lot of users to suffer from that problem). That, and the concept of "noise" like useless silly stuff, are our primary focus going forward. My solution is to remove the ability of public trolling in a nutshell.
Sam if you are a semi technical founder (you have coded before but not recently enough to build your product) and you have to get a cofounder but have the choice between one you know and will be able to climb mountains with but has the same dilemma vs a technical cofounder/employee. Who would you choose to go with? The one you can figure it out with or the one who can basically do it for you?
Having a cofounder you don't know well is usually a very bad idea. It's much more important to trust someone and know they are great than to 'hire' for a specific skill.
If we look at this from a risk-reward perspective and define 10 as the maximum reward for the maximum amount of risk then we have the entrepreneur who is a 10 for obvious reasons, an Angel who invests in the entrepreneur (maybe not the idea really because it might pivot a few times) maybe at an 8, then VCs at 7, bigger institutional investors at 5, and so on and so forth until the average teacher in Michigan who's pension allocates .001% of AUMs to VC at maybe .5 it becomes clear that if that structure becomes unbalanced the overall value creation cycle starts to become disfigured. In other words everyone tends to forget what's really important. For example if an entrepreneur doesn't feel that there is a great deal of risk to their personal livelihood as well as a great deal of reward for taking that risk and an inherent difficulty of having to earn every single cent (i.e. if they assume they can find easy money) then they are probably less likely to dig as deep as they can to come up with ingenious solutions to problems which is really the core of the whole tech startup scene. And then we can back trace that all the way back to the teacher in Michigan who might think that they are better off giving their money directly to someone who is a "VC" in SV. Basically the whole risk-reward equation becomes unbalanced. As a result when S#$$ hits the fan for them, everyone who doesn't really understand that model/equation will slow down. But my theory is that the ones that actually stick to the fundamental rules will keep plugging along with a small grin on their faces because they are glad that they are the ones who actually start to lead again and create value with a lot less BS!
http://bleepmic.com
A social voice network. Gives people the ability to literally talk to each other in a townhall-like manner. Didn't get the interview but will have app out in 2 weeks. Looking forward to everyone's feedback!
