How to find a driven business partner like Steve Jobs?

[John_ITIC]

the trick is : never become personal. It is ok to yell at a person if he doesn't do his stuff on time. Calling him an idiot is a no-no though.
Some people need a good yell to kick em into action. Nothing wrong with 'venting' and getting all excited and worked up. Good brainstorm sessions always erupt in a shouting match ( but 'good' shouting' , as in excited or in defending ones idea. 

you have to understand that in a professional setting it is never personal.

I have yet to see such behavior in a professional office setting. My experience is that "educated" people usually have good manors but company owners, who may have taken another path to power, and cannot be fired, may have a disregard of proper etiquette. If an employee would behave in a manor that Jobs did then he wouldn't be employed for long. Best to put other pressures on to get the job done (tighter schedules, hints etc.). On the other hand, my neighbor is crazy and he has an engineering degree from a major university so there are all types everywhere, I suppose...

[Corporate666]

With all due respect, please read the posts carefully before doling out undue criticism. The "greedy middle men" was a comment made by another poster, who said that he though investors didn't add value, seeing them as greedy. I, on the other hand, have repeatedly said that I greatly value the input from experienced investors, even ready to give up half of the ownership, knowing that the product is only a small part of the business. The "clown suit contest" comment was a reference to the dog and pony show most business owners put on in an attempt to hype their business in hope of attracting funding.

I did read the posts.  The other guy may have used the term, however you referred to them as "unfortunately, sometimes needed".  Starting out a relationship with a grudge is no way to start.  I'm not just taking a shot at you because I am more on the business side than the engineering side, it's something you should keep in mind as you move forward.  But let's put that aside for now....

You've gotten quite a lot of good advice in this thread.  I work with a bunch of VC's in New England and I'm usually the guy they call when there is a technical side to a deal that nobody understands but they are interested in investing and want to know whether there is any real 'meat' there.  Some things to consider...

-You may be uncomfortable with sales and business stuff... the idea of hiring someone (through salary or equity) to "just handle it" may sound appealing, but all you will be doing is moving those conversations and that work you are uncomfortable with from outside to inside and you will be dealing with it daily.  A long long time ago at my first company I tried to do the same thing as you, except for sales.  It just doesn't work, IMO.

-I don't know how accurate the "my margins are lower because of the development cycle" thing is, I'm not saying you are lying, I just don't know, but it definitely comes across as a red flag to an investor, basically admitting you'll always be a step or two behind.  I think that is a question you need to come up with a really good answer to, for when you are in front of an investor.

-I totally disagree with folks who are saying an investor wants to take over or to eat you alive on equity, etc.  An investor is never going to invest in someone they don't think is qualified or capable.  It's like buying a fixer-upper of a home, which nobody would do unless they were hoping to get a better ROI.  So you don't want to go in saying you need all sorts of help with marketing/sales/administration/etc because I think that is going to be detrimental.  It's saying to an investor "I'm going to be a handful and take a lot of time and need a lot of questions answered" - and they are going to want a massive chunk of equity if they are going to be hand-holding.

-I very much disagree with the idea of "we can't compete on price because we don't have the name, so our prices are lower and our margins less".  It's OK to be a low price supplier, but a small company as the low price supplier in an established market with big competitors?  That's a bad bad place to be.  You want to be a feature leader over others.  You need to offer something they don't.  One of my rules (and it's universal among the VC's I work with) is that the moment someone talks about how they will win on price.... that's an investment you just don't make. 



Just some things to keep in mind.  Again, I don't think you need a partner.  Maybe an employee as some others said - maybe with a small equity position in restricted non-voting shares or something, but no way a 50/50 partner, especially not if your goal is to get investment from VC's in the near future.

[John_ITIC]

With all due respect, please read the posts carefully before doling out undue criticism. The "greedy middle men" was a comment made by another poster, who said that he though investors didn't add value, seeing them as greedy. I, on the other hand, have repeatedly said that I greatly value the input from experienced investors, even ready to give up half of the ownership, knowing that the product is only a small part of the business. The "clown suit contest" comment was a reference to the dog and pony show most business owners put on in an attempt to hype their business in hope of attracting funding.

I did read the posts.  The other guy may have used the term, however you referred to them as "unfortunately, sometimes needed".  Starting out a relationship with a grudge is no way to start.  I'm not just taking a shot at you because I am more on the business side than the engineering side, it's something you should keep in mind as you move forward.  But let's put that aside for now....

You've gotten quite a lot of good advice in this thread.  I work with a bunch of VC's in New England and I'm usually the guy they call when there is a technical side to a deal that nobody understands but they are interested in investing and want to know whether there is any real 'meat' there.  Some things to consider...

-You may be uncomfortable with sales and business stuff... the idea of hiring someone (through salary or equity) to "just handle it" may sound appealing, but all you will be doing is moving those conversations and that work you are uncomfortable with from outside to inside and you will be dealing with it daily.  A long long time ago at my first company I tried to do the same thing as you, except for sales.  It just doesn't work, IMO.

-I don't know how accurate the "my margins are lower because of the development cycle" thing is, I'm not saying you are lying, I just don't know, but it definitely comes across as a red flag to an investor, basically admitting you'll always be a step or two behind.  I think that is a question you need to come up with a really good answer to, for when you are in front of an investor.

-I totally disagree with folks who are saying an investor wants to take over or to eat you alive on equity, etc.  An investor is never going to invest in someone they don't think is qualified or capable.  It's like buying a fixer-upper of a home, which nobody would do unless they were hoping to get a better ROI.  So you don't want to go in saying you need all sorts of help with marketing/sales/administration/etc because I think that is going to be detrimental.  It's saying to an investor "I'm going to be a handful and take a lot of time and need a lot of questions answered" - and they are going to want a massive chunk of equity if they are going to be hand-holding.

-I very much disagree with the idea of "we can't compete on price because we don't have the name, so our prices are lower and our margins less".  It's OK to be a low price supplier, but a small company as the low price supplier in an established market with big competitors?  That's a bad bad place to be.  You want to be a feature leader over others.  You need to offer something they don't.  One of my rules (and it's universal among the VC's I work with) is that the moment someone talks about how they will win on price.... that's an investment you just don't make. 



Just some things to keep in mind.  Again, I don't think you need a partner.  Maybe an employee as some others said - maybe with a small equity position in restricted non-voting shares or something, but no way a 50/50 partner, especially not if your goal is to get investment from VC's in the near future.

Thanks for the advice. I think we are on the same page. The biggest obstacle to increasing revenue is time to market in order to be able to take advantage of the product life cycle. I was lucky with my first product, which I estimate I started selling somewhere in the ramp-up of the cycle. It sold well for a number of years before newer technologies came along. My second product was technologically much more advanced (perhaps 7x more complex) but a market dud. Due to the complexity, it took too long and by the time it was completed, I missed the market window. I'm now on product #3, which will be introduced somewhere in the middle of the product/technology life cycle. Consistently, late to market, chasing the market, results in less revenue. It is quite obvious that more engineering resources are needed to get to market sooner. That costs money so investment would be needed or a big risk would be needed to hire on revenue. This is where a business person would be able to help out. More engineering resources without business guidance spells disaster if making a wrong product choice since a cash flow crisis would surely ensue. The same goes for more business staffing without more engineering resources; more negative cashflow without solving the time-to-market issue. This is why the title of this thread seeks a "driven business partner", who would complement my technical expertise.

Now, regarding product choices: I know that high-speed serial protocol analysis is an approximately 1 billion dollar business. Each major competitor has about 100 million revenue each. The minor ones have about 1-5 Million USD in yearly revenue. I know the USB protocol analyzers sold over the web are more or less consumer products so can be sold on price. With business contacts and experience strategy, other product choices could be made; military, government, other special equipment, etc. These are all skillsets that an engineer is not trained in so I still maintain that teaming up with a partner would be beneficial OR an investor would be willing to take a chance to put in funds to hire the right business skillset and THEN find additional markets and products that the technology know-how can take advantage of. As I mentioned earlier; it took me 20 years to be fully competent in Engineering and I assume the same applies to business professionals.

I see the whole thing as a bit of a chicken or egg problem...

Edit: I think what is needed is to find an investor that knows technology well enough to realize the value of the engineering knowhow available in me and the available products. A massive investment (20 years of consulting-level engineering experience, 8 years of hard-core every-evening, every-weekend product development, 2 years of full-time development, 6,000 pages of research notes in 16 huge binders, and around $500K invested) of engineering has gone into getting to this point. This is something that only a corporation normally would attempt but I ended up doing it myself as the challenge was worthy. The technology, products and knowhow have been proven via over 850 units sold, with a total revenue close to $500K USD. Distributors are in place in 10 countries on most continents etc. I turned down a $150K/year job working with these technologies since I figured I should be able to build something better and bigger in the form of a company around the technology know-how. That offer still stands if needed but before "going back = giving up" I want to dig a little deeper to see what traction I can get.

Definitely, there is intellectual property available that can be applied to many other fields in this 1 billion USD market. Not in the form of formal patents (which are not worth the paper they are written on unless one has money to enforce them in court) but rather in the form of the engineering know-how. All the information these days gets shuffled around in high-speed serial communications networks and all these networks are using protocol analyzers during their development. TVs use HDMI; computers use PCI Express, SATA and SAS, fiber, general networking, telephony etc - it's all high-speed serial.

Note that a lot of my time gets diverted to sales, marketing, emailing etc. Therefore, a person handling the business-side (hired or partner) is still my preferred solution so I can fully utilize my engineering know-how. Engineering is a narrow specialty skill and I assume that business is the same (within a certain market segment). Why is it always that a founder is supposed to have business savvy and get funding to hire engineers rather than the other way around? I think it is because investors most often don't understand technology enough to see the value, while a business savvy person can dazzle an investor much more easily with inflated projections that have (perhaps) little correlation with reality.

Based on feedback from Angels and VCs (YouTube and online), it is still a hit-and-miss business of finding a good investment. apparently, less than 10% of investments pay off, 80% go nowhere and 10% die quickly. Products and markets frequently change, while teams and founders remain. Therefore, I think "investing in people" is the key. Usually, this means a proven management (business) team but, sometimes, in the form of exceptional engineering (Seymour Cray comes to mind).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Cray

[Galenbo]

Maybe a combination is the solution?
You need an extra engineer, so hire a guy that is 3/4 engineer, 1/4 salesman, do the engineering together, do the sales/marketing/business together.

Yes, that would be perfect but I can only assume that it will be a very mammoth effort to find such a person. I have thought about creating some kind of Internet-based collaboration, ...

Maybe base the search on archieved results? Someone who put something together, and sells it himself, just like you.
Then you know he is enough of a engineer, and enough of a businessman.

But it seems you want to stay the owner, and keep control over what happens.
Then it must be someone who is younger, I mean in age or in the mass of his archievements.

[TerraHertz]

A few more thoughts.

You're right about everything going high-speed serial. But this is not just a technical development, it has political aspects too. Have you read Bunny Huang's book 'Hacking the XBOX'? (He's released it free online.) Point being, one of the side effects of high speed serial interfaces, is they enable kinds of data-protection that weren't possible before, and there are many big players (hi MS, Intel, etc) who like this idea very much, and are actively steering in the direction of closed-box systems, by use of high speed serial (encrypted, or just hard to read by virtue of the frequencies involved.)

So, by producing protocol analyzers in this area, you are kind of making yourself an enemy of parties who'd rather such things were as little available as possible. Consequences: they may make things (technical and legal) difficult for you. Also, if you recognize you're engaged in work that has political implications, you can grasp opportunities there - if you are careful.
So, some companies want to use high speed serial to secure system data flows? OK, so there will by definition be many others who'd like to unlock them. There's a market for you, especially if your marketing makes that point.

The first XBOX was an MS experiment in implementing a closed computing platform, by relying on the non-observability of the LPC (very high speed) serial bus between the CPU and NorthBridge. It was part of their early work towards a closed PC platform, able to support MS ideas for a DRM-based OS, allowing MS to implement pay-per view (of their large film and music library holdings.) When Bunny cracked that system they had to rethink, and are still working on alternatives. Have you heard this new one:
  http://investmentwatchblog.com/all-new-cpus-will-require-windows-10/
  ALL New CPUs Will Require Windows 10
  (I don't know if this is believable. Needs confirmation.)
Point being, someone selling tools to see HOW they achieve such a thing (and combat it), might sell a lot of them in the right circumstances.

Along those lines, is there any chance you could do protocol analyzer products that were *very* cheap? Enough for mass market? In which case you could market them as teaching aids for experimenters, not just advanced tools for top engineers. Something you could sell through Maker outlets like dangerousprototypes.com, sparkfun.com, hackaday.com, adafruit.com, etc.
If you had working prototypes of something affordable with mass geek-appeal, then you could probably raise production and staff-hire capital via crowdfunding channels. While retaining 100% control.


Economics again. When I mentioned the potential for a new downturn aka GFC#2, you kind of handwaved indicating you know something's up but feel it won't be as bad as last time (2008.) You've also repeatedly (and accurately) pointed out that you have a vast investment of time, money and expertise sunk into your protocol analyzer business, and you feel it's high time you started reaping some rewards. Hence the partner idea.
Methinks the latter is causing some wishful thinking on the former. Which is dangerous. Things are more likely to be like this:
  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-19/why-slump-has-legs
I don't know what you'd decide to do if you recognized that this time things could get far more grim than 2008. But I do think you should consider it more seriously than you apparently are.

[nctnico]

@TerraHertz: Recently I read an article that pirated games will be a thing of the past in about 2 years because the protection is getting too good to be cracked. Recent games take weeks to crack already.

[MT]

Easy for you to say since you live in a country where others are paying for your school, kids education, healthcare etc. You can sit on your rump in Sweden and still get all the same social services as someone killing themselves trying to get ahead. That's why so few are trying to get ahead. I know, I'm born and grew up in Sweden, moved to the US about 15 years ago. Here in the US, we have to work hard or we end up on the street.

Yeah, yeah, somewhat entertaining when certain (post Swedes) US citizens whatever vent their preconceptions
on other countries and in same sweep claims to be born in the same country but left because of it. Soon you will say
Polar Bears walk down the street here and your favorite meal is smorgasboard!

Why do you think people are paying super high taxes here have you already forgot your heritage? And no Sweden
are not a socialist country just pretending to be but in reality highly capitalistic but with high taxes and have always been
forgot that to? Maybe you should evaluate US for it's god sides instead of pointing out the obvious bad one's? No country
is heaven, well perhaps Norway are! HoHum ...well no they are firing oil worker en mass i see now!

Why condemn the very same country you move'd to only to parasite on their low tax system, if you dont like US you can
move back to Sweden where everyone are lazy and lives on others work you self proclaimed rhetorical bastard, i could say
but dont because it's not very polite.

Now, I hardly adore Jobs, I agree based on available information that he was a hard-core hustler and would
have no patience for anyone standing in his way. Business is war. You either lose or you win. Take your pick.
Calling me an *a******* because I'm asking where to find a driven business partner is hardly constructive,
nor very polite...

Yet you advertise for a Steve Jobs type in posts and thread header!

In the VC's business there is something called zombie companies, i let you figure ut.Your moving goal posts. I didn't say you
are a *a******* what i said was Steve seams to be an asshole according to the web and it's beneficial to be or have
narcissistic features to understand other narcissists else you might end up screwed. So again then, dont get it why you
want to get deliberately screwed by giving away 50% to an asshole while hailing assholes as a role model for success
just as the web article points out are not that's my point.

Your problem are your asking for a Steve Jobs while not being able to understand the magnitude of such personality to begin
with besides no Steve Jobs character would be interested in your small company with a specialized product on a narrow market
else then screw you off your money and leave you on the street to eat gravel.

Somehow you seams to be stuck i the idea that highfly VC's is a golden solution but all your reference's so far of VC's are
YouTube and online not even face to face!? My tiny experience of "highfly VC's" are when they enter a company they often
tell founders to take a hike particularly during bubble building periods! Guess why? Once i was in R/D of a venture 24 company
and i was equally nasty/entertaining here as anywhere else including US! We had among many some US based VC's investors!

You have already got ton's of god advice's and also clear warning's from other people in this thread.
I throw you another obvious one like step out of your preconceived engineering shoes and step into the shoes of a decent
serious VC and scrutinize your self and your company and business plan,what flaws do you find and for which reasons would
you as a VC invest in your company?

"50% cheaper then others" is not going to work on a specialized market, there are always a Chinese dude who's cheaper!

Why is it always that a founder is supposed to have business savvy and get funding to hire engineers rather than the other way around? I think it is because investors most often don't understand technology enough to see the value, while a business savvy person can dazzle an investor much more easily with inflated projections that have (perhaps) little correlation with reality.

Based on feedback from Angels and VCs (YouTube and online), it is still a hit-and-miss business of finding a good investment. apparently, less than 10% of investments pay off, 80% go nowhere and 10% die quickly. Products and markets frequently change, while teams and founders remain. Therefore, I think "investing in people" is the key. Usually, this means a proven management (business) team but, sometimes, in the form of exceptional engineering (Seymour Cray comes to mind).

In your race for the "celebrity names" you could as well look into Raymond Kurzweil a dude who know his engineering skills
but also known for being a David v.s able to talk, Goliats into invest in his companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil

Now, regarding product choices: I know that high-speed serial protocol analysis is an approximately 1 billion dollar business. Each major competitor has about 100 million revenue each. The minor ones have about 1-5 Million USD in yearly revenue. I know the USB protocol analyzers sold over the web are more or less consumer products so can be sold on price.

As Dave etc already suggested, simply go and pitch, pitch everywhere, dedicate 2 days a week for 2 moth's see what happens
then make the future route.

[John_ITIC]

I read somewhere that "only idiots argue on the internet" so I'm not going to respond further to some of the personally aggressive, antagonistic posts here. A few responders have actually kept on topic, recommending places where business contacts are made. I thank you for that. Some even PM'd and emailed me. Thank you. Going off on a crusade against how bad Steve Jobs was or this or that is perhaps understandable since this is an Electronics (hobby) forum. I will keep searching for a more business-like forum that discuss these topics. If anyone can recommend such a forum, I'd appreciate a pointer.

Thanks,
/John.

[John_ITIC]

So, by producing protocol analyzers in this area, you are kind of making yourself an enemy of parties who'd rather such things were as little available as possible. Consequences: they may make things (technical and legal) difficult for you. Also, if you recognize you're engaged in work that has political implications, you can grasp opportunities there - if you are careful.
So, some companies want to use high speed serial to secure system data flows? OK, so there will by definition be many others who'd like to unlock them. There's a market for you, especially if your marketing makes that point.

Well, any encryption would have to be made on a layer higher than the physical layer so would not affect a protocol analyzer. The physical protocols essentially deal with transporting packets, CRCs etc. If there is higher-level encryption, the packer data will be nonsense but the protocol analyzer will be able to determine whether the packets are correctly formatted.

Along those lines, is there any chance you could do protocol analyzer products that were *very* cheap? Enough for mass market? In which case you could market them as teaching aids for experimenters, not just advanced tools for top engineers. Something you could sell through Maker outlets like dangerousprototypes.com, sparkfun.com, hackaday.com, adafruit.com, etc.
If you had working prototypes of something affordable with mass geek-appeal, then you could probably raise production and staff-hire capital via crowdfunding channels. While retaining 100% control.

Not possible. Too much engineering go into these products and the market is too small. I tried Kickstarter to probe the interest. Flop.

Economics again. When I mentioned the potential for a new downturn aka GFC#2, you kind of handwaved indicating you know something's up but feel it won't be as bad as last time (2008.) You've also repeatedly (and accurately) pointed out that you have a vast investment of time, money and expertise sunk into your protocol analyzer business, and you feel it's high time you started reaping some rewards. Hence the partner idea.
Methinks the latter is causing some wishful thinking on the former. Which is dangerous. Things are more likely to be like this:
  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-19/why-slump-has-legs
I don't know what you'd decide to do if you recognized that this time things could get far more grim than 2008. But I do think you should consider it more seriously than you apparently are.

Whatever happens in the economy will happen. I can't go and dig a bomb shelter in anticipation what might happen. 2008 is so fresh in everybody's mind that everybody is waiting for the next crash to happen. This is exactly why it will not happen. The market always does that the majority is not expecting. All the central banks over the world are sitting with their fingers on the "quantative easing" button, ready for whenever a down-turn comes. Last time nobody was ready and it took time to react - not this time.

[TerraHertz]

I will keep searching for a more business-like forum that discuss these topics. If anyone can recommend such a forum, I'd appreciate a pointer.

http://www.ycombinator.com/
Seriously, that's *exactly* what it does. Sorry, I don't know why it didn't occur to me to mention it earlier. Old age perhaps.

They also run https://news.ycombinator.com/, which is a tech/startup news forum, also very good.

I don't think people were insulting you, only questioning the wisdom of your ambition to entangle yourself with a Steve Jobs type personality. It became an argument when you insisted on jousting with views not in precise accordance with your own position, rather than just making a list of points raised that perhaps you should consider.


Edit to add:

So, by producing protocol analyzers in this area, you are kind of making yourself an enemy of parties who'd rather such things were as little available as possible. Consequences: they may make things (technical and legal) difficult for you. Also, if you recognize you're engaged in work that has political implications, you can grasp opportunities there - if you are careful.
So, some companies want to use high speed serial to secure system data flows? OK, so there will by definition be many others who'd like to unlock them. There's a market for you, especially if your marketing makes that point.

Well, any encryption would have to be made on a layer higher than the physical layer so would not affect a protocol analyzer. The physical protocols essentially deal with transporting packets, CRCs etc. If there is higher-level encryption, the packer data will be nonsense but the protocol analyzer will be able to determine whether the packets are correctly formatted.

Yes, of course, this is obvious. My point was that high speed serial physical layers are so difficult to tap into that very few hardware experimenters can see the data at all. Which means there is market potential. Think 'the Rigol of serial protocol analyzers'.

Along those lines, is there any chance you could do protocol analyzer products that were *very* cheap? Enough for mass market? In which case you could market them as teaching aids for experimenters, not just advanced tools for top engineers. Something you could sell through Maker outlets like dangerousprototypes.com, sparkfun.com, hackaday.com, adafruit.com, etc.
If you had working prototypes of something affordable with mass geek-appeal, then you could probably raise production and staff-hire capital via crowdfunding channels. While retaining 100% control.

Not possible. Too much engineering go into these products and the market is too small.

Mass market potential is constrained by hardware manufacture cost, not the amount of development/learning already invested.

I tried Kickstarter to probe the interest. Flop.

No possibility you framed the attempt poorly? Didn't market it well? Just one failed attempt and you give up that path forever?

[MT]

I read somewhere that "only idiots argue on the internet"

Well, dont argue on the internet then.

I will keep searching for a more business-like forum that discuss these topics. If anyone can recommend such a forum, I'd appreciate a pointer.

I don't think people were insulting you, only questioning the wisdom of your ambition to entangle yourself with a Steve Jobs type personality. It became an argument when you insisted on jousting with views not in precise accordance with your own position, rather than just making a list of points raised that perhaps you should consider.

Indeed, but i doubt John_ITIC are able to understand since he dont realize his way of argumentation
is his biggest enemy to success, i get the impression he want to hear what fit's his flawed ideas.

John ITIC argue in a similar way as the dude in i-want-a-engineer-for-10%-share thread! maybe they should join.

[dannyf]

" I think what is needed is to find an investor that knows technology well enough to realize the value of the engineering knowhow available in me and the available products"

This may not what you like to hear but technology contributes very little to the eventual success of a product, or an enterprise.

Because engineering talents are easy to replace. If you are selling yourself and your achievement so far as an engineer or engineering one, you have undersold yoursel

From what I have heard, you have identified a market niche, a demand that is yet to be met by other mkt participants, and you have a proven track record in this space marketing and engineering successful products.

And most of them all, you have had failures and you have lost money.

Those knowledge pieces are worth far more than what a lowly engineer can bring to the table.

So don't find that investor who appreciates your engineering talents instead, find that investor who appreciates all of you.

That way, you will get a lot more out of you.

[nctnico]

This may not what you like to hear but technology contributes very little to the eventual success of a product, or an enterprise.

This is very true. I always tell my customers that technology by itself is worthless. Someone needs to sell it in order to be worth something! There is a profit optimum around selling something which doesn't exist yet and get it made just in time once it is sold.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I think your products are probably way too niche and specilaised for any "business" type person to have a clue about.
Your potential customers will be engineers like yourself, who'd rather talk to you than some sales person who doesn't know all the fine details.
It's probably an area where you have to offer something significantly better then the "usual suspects", as I'd guess that just being cheaper may not be enough. Someone developing this sort of stuff is most likely on a big budget and tight timescale.

If you could offer something that is in some way obviously better and/or quicker at getting the job done then the product should sell itself to some extent.

I'd agree with the earlier comment about exploring licensing - if there is an established test gear brand with a gap in their range that you could fill by producing something for them to sell under their name, then that would be the ideal situation as they already have the sales & marketing in place.
Not just test gear manufacturers - anyone selling silicon into this area (FPGA people?) may also have some interest in having their "own" protocol analysis solution tailored around their products or IP offerings, or integrated into their own tools.


 

[John_ITIC]

http://www.ycombinator.com/
Seriously, that's *exactly* what it does. Sorry, I don't know why it didn't occur to me to mention it earlier. Old age perhaps.

They also run https://news.ycombinator.com/, which is a tech/startup news forum, also very good.

Thanks. I checked and only for people in the Bay Area. I have a friend that got funded and he recently mentioned something about a local incubator. I will ask again to get some more information.

[John_ITIC]

" I think what is needed is to find an investor that knows technology well enough to realize the value of the engineering knowhow available in me and the available products"

This may not what you like to hear but technology contributes very little to the eventual success of a product, or an enterprise.

Because engineering talents are easy to replace. If you are selling yourself and your achievement so far as an engineer or engineering one, you have undersold yoursel

From what I have heard, you have identified a market niche, a demand that is yet to be met by other mkt participants, and you have a proven track record in this space marketing and engineering successful products.

And most of them all, you have had failures and you have lost money.

Those knowledge pieces are worth far more than what a lowly engineer can bring to the table.

So don't find that investor who appreciates your engineering talents instead, find that investor who appreciates all of you.

That way, you will get a lot more out of you.

I would not say I have lost money. I have gained experience and built products and know-how. One does not "lose money" when one goes to college, one gets educated. But I agree, there has been negative cash flow along the way.

Engineering talent can be replaced. Ownership of ready-developed technology cannot (cheaply) be replaced but will take a lot of money, know-how and time to create. So it has direct value for someone that can take advantage of it.

I can turn this argument around: There should be plenty of people with business experience (perhaps from working a corporate job 15 years) that would die to have ownership of IP and products that directly could be used for building a company. I would not underestimate the engineering contribution either.

Having that said; I know that technology is only a small part of business success. It is all about building business processes around the product. But the product is still needed or else there is nothing to build the business around. Both are needed. I have half and am trying to find the other half.

Edit: bad spelling...

[John_ITIC]

Your potential customers will be engineers like yourself, who'd rather talk to you than some sales person who doesn't know all the fine details.
It's probably an area where you have to offer something significantly better then the "usual suspects", as I'd guess that just being cheaper may not be enough. Someone developing this sort of stuff is most likely on a big budget and tight timescale.

If you could offer something that is in some way obviously better and/or quicker at getting the job done then the product should sell itself to some extent.

The gear from the major manufacturers is not necessarily better quality or have better features. But they do crank them out quickly with a big budget. They know the product life cycle is short so they don't put much work into good software. Larger manufacturers sell on reputation and that they support compliance testing etc. Small manufacturers compete with good marketing, but doesn't have much better features. I try to create the best products I can and "hope" to get a reputation at some point for building good gear. If I don't go bankrupt along the way...

I'd agree with the earlier comment about exploring licensing - if there is an established test gear brand with a gap in their range that you could fill by producing something for them to sell under their name, then that would be the ideal situation as they already have the sales & marketing in place.
Not just test gear manufacturers - anyone selling silicon into this area (FPGA people?) may also have some interest in having their "own" protocol analysis solution tailored around their products or IP offerings, or integrated into their own tools.

A major problem is to reach the right people within large organizations with such suggestions. Most such email requests go straight to the waste-basket since the gate-keeper doesn't understand and thinks it is spam.

[Galenbo]

A major problem is to reach the right people within large organizations with such suggestions. Most such email requests go straight to the waste-basket since the gate-keeper doesn't understand and thinks it is spam.

True. A way to invest in these contacts (in my area), is offering internship to engineering students.
It will bring you in contact with students that will work exactly on the spot you want, and bring you in contact with the professsors that know where everybody landed.
This will cost you a lot of efforts and money, but for some it is really worth it.

... but technology contributes very little to the eventual success of a product, or an enterprise.

Because engineering talents are easy to replace...

Seen that before, where the company ends up with a row of products, nobody knows about anymore.
But engineering, indeed, was easyly replaced, one by one.

What customers thought about the company where nobody was even aware anymore of what they sold?
Completely not relevant to actual and future sales and business "success" of course.

[nctnico]

A major problem is to reach the right people within large organizations with such suggestions. Most such email requests go straight to the waste-basket since the gate-keeper doesn't understand and thinks it is spam.

Perhaps hiring a booth at some kind of convention / trade show could help to get more contacts. It is a long winded process but knowing the right people and thus creating contacts in large firms takes time.

[John_ITIC]

A major problem is to reach the right people within large organizations with such suggestions. Most such email requests go straight to the waste-basket since the gate-keeper doesn't understand and thinks it is spam.

Perhaps hiring a booth at some kind of convention / trade show could help to get more contacts. It is a long winded process but knowing the right people and thus creating contacts in large firms takes time.

Yes, time, that elusive variable keeps popping up...

[nctnico]

Perhaps you should have started earlier with broadening your network. Even in busy times I take time to 'network' so the contacts are there in case my regular customers get quiet..

[Alexei.Polkhanov]

Some time ago ... I run into a book in a book store, and forgot what the book is, because it is not important - story is applicable to ALL books in a list like this
http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadershop/titleindex.html.

I purchased it, red it in 2 days and made a one single discovery - what set all successful entrepreneurs and business men/women apart is that they 1. NEVER EVER need to read stupid books like this to be successful 2. Fact that I actually wasted 2 evenings of my life to find out what successful people do from a book means exactly that - I NEVER EVER was or will be one of them.

Let me extrapolate it further - if you ask how to find partner like Jobbs means that you never will, and if you do he/she will ignore you and what I am saying was not true you would have found one already!

"Excuse me Sir ... but if you have to ask the price it means you cannot afford it  " - does that ring the bell?

There must be some kind of philosophical law that explains this "phenomenon" of sorts.

[nctnico]

Nahhh you forget one thing: any problem can be solved by throwing money at it. If you hire someone with the right sales contacts anyone can create a succesful business. The biggest problem usually is getting the money but once you have that you are more than half way there.

[free_electron]

Some time ago ... I run into a book in a book store, and forgot what the book is, because it is not important - story is applicable to ALL books in a list like this
http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadershop/titleindex.html.

I purchased it, red it in 2 days and made a one single discovery - what set all successful entrepreneurs and business men/women apart is that they 1. NEVER EVER need to read stupid books like this to be successful 2. Fact that I actually wasted 2 evenings of my life to find out what successful people do from a book means exactly that - I NEVER EVER was or will be one of them.

Let me extrapolate it further - if you ask how to find partner like Jobbs means that you never will, and if you do he/she will ignore you and what I am saying was not true you would have found one already!

"Excuse me Sir ... but if you have to ask the price it means you cannot afford it  " - does that ring the bell?

There must be some kind of philosophical law that explains this "phenomenon" of sorts.

successfull entrepreneurs / leaders are too busy making money. they have no time to write books.

Who knows, does. Who doesn't, teaches.  still holds true

[mtdoc]

successfull entrepreneurs / leaders are too busy making money. they have no time to write books.

Who knows, does. Who doesn't, teaches.  still holds true

This was never true and isn't now. It was intended as a put down. Plenty of highly successful people have a desire to repay to society  the massive contribution education made to their lives. Some do it in the form of teaching. That is not something to be ashamed of.

Very true. Some people actually enjoy teaching and prefer doing it rather than chasing money or prestige.

That said - I suspect it is generally true that those writing books about how to be a successful entrepeneur are likely just trying to be successful by selling books and not really interested in teaching.

BTW - I doubt Vincent (free_electron) really believes what he wrote since he himself has written several books! - likely very good ones.