I think they will simply because of desperation but why would you give some equity for something you can pay cash for unless you either don't believe in the project or you're broke.

Henry,
Can you clear some PM space please?

Done

Cash is obviously the most important, but the 3-5% equity you give him gives the developer an incentive to do necessary things you cannot do well like fix bugs, add new minor features, improve speed/overall quality as you gain more users hopefully. It's also a better free roll for you because around 95-99% apps fail IIRC

Think about this -- you just said something fails 95-99% of the time and you expect anyone with any marketable skills to work for 5%?

I don't really consider apps to be business ventures but this isn't an app. It is taking a dating service that existed without the internet and gaining some efficiencies and scale by being online. We had something very similar to Grouper called DinnerWorks fifteen years ago but it cost a lot more, moved slower, and could never really grow as fast. The app here is just the means by which the customer signs up for the service which is still group blind dates.

See I think initially you wouldn't need to pay the bars.

Meet with bar manager, propose a trial period. I'll bring you 6 single people on a weeknight, you provide the drink, we can do a profitability test, and go from there. I imagine each person is probably going to consume a minimum of 3 drinks on average, and a high percentage of the time we are probably talking about 6+ including shots. This is a no brainer for the bar. Obviously the trick is finding the bars that are cool enough to use but not so cool that they are still packed every night of the week, but that won't be a problem.

Bars have more than a 100% markup on alcohol, so even if people buy 1 drink the bar comes out ahead, ignoring the free marketing and fact that it looks like a cooler venue having groups of singles on a tuesday night there. Can't imagine selling to the bar as a roadblock. If successful I think you can probably even squeeze them more, but that would be trialled down the track.

The main reason this idea doesn't need funding like facebook etc, is it's pay per use policy. While it may be slow to start, there will be income coming in from day 1. There is no need to wait until we have a large market share and can show investors/advertisors it's a feasible investment. My friend is launching a yelp clone (though looks better) and his idea obviously needs a serious incubation period because no money will come in during the first 6 months. This one doesn't need that.

Agree with AS. While I would rather not throw equity away, I'm definitely considering it for someone who will be there for support. Obviously would need to be more long term.

I think people are highly overestimating the legal aspects. Create waiver, problem solved. A judge would literally laugh you out of court if you tried to sue a company for something that happened on a licensed premises which you showed up to of your own accord. You can maybe sue the bar for negligence if for example the toilets were unsafe and something happened, but good luck suing an events company who simply provided you a meeting place.

You don't pay the bars they pay you.

Waivers are worthless in most jurisdictions.

Online dating sites get sued all the time.

A judge might laugh, but your legal fees for having to deal with that crap will bankrupt you.

Genuine question? Do you have a working knowledge of law outside of the us? If so carry on, but if you are just applying us law incorrectly than its not very useful. It's been 5 years since law school so I'm far from an expert but these concerns seem to be much less of a problem here

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using 2+2 Forums

The concerns outside of the US are less but still significant. I don't have any knowledge of NZ or Australian law but most of the Commonwealth countries have very similar legal system and I would be concerned about this in Canada.

Incorporation in Canada takes 15 minutes and costs under $300. It is generally in the ballpark in other countries I'm familiar with so I'll assume the same for you. For such a small cost why not protect yourself regardless of what you believe the risk is?

Not to mention in most jurisdictions there are also tax advantages to incorporating so even if you are not concerned about liability you still get those benefits.

Are we simply talking about incorporating? Obviously I'll do that? 444 here, no brainer

Obviously I'm going to protect myself personally. I thought we were taking about the company being sued


Sent from my HTC_PN071 using 2+2 Forums

Yes I meant separating yourself personally from the company for liability purposes. There is nothing you can do beyond that.

I agree that liability should not be an issue but people who allow their desperation to not be alone cloud their judgement and end up doing stupid things sue online dating sites all the time. I see it as complete bull**** and something that should be tossed out but you never know. You can't protect the business but at least protect your personal assets.

I also see this as much less of a concern for something like this. Typically these issues revolve around desperate women giving conmen their life savings which you're not going to have happening with a younger demographic.

i'm pretty sure it's not related to sunlight because some days i have gotten pretty burnt and didn't get any redness.

henry can you recommend a good facial moisturizer to use before i go to sleep?
----
lately i've had a little more success using tinder. a girl told me "it's just like approaching someone at a bar except less awkward" and that seems to be a decent guideline in determining what things to say and what tone to adopt

Perfect, thanks!

I'd be shocked if there weren't already some sort of clones or similar ideas to grouper operating in tbh. It's hardly a novel idea, been around since 2011 and had significant media exposure.

It doesn't matter tho, just make your app better than everyone elses.

Incorporating is a no-brainer, it costs low AUD $400 I think. Save the lawyers till the biz is actually viable.

she just replied:

"sorry to respond to late..i dont get too many study breaks any more [NB: should be anymore...#grammar]. But i'm in the home stretch...plans next tuesday?"

the test is on monday, so that's a good sign.

also i am on a sickkk poker heater by my standards and up $3600 in the last few months playing sparingly and running like god. that's unrelated tho

You fine mann just live ur life n talk to her Tuesday.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums

What's considered a "good table" at a nice restaurant? (for two)

Sent from my TI-89 Graphing Calculator using 2+2 Forums

Across form each other, made for two, and with a good view/privacy situation.

Ideally away from door and away from kitchen, i would assume. But its not like the table spot is truly a make or break thing, and if you worry about that you are reverse freerolling yourself.

Difficult to say and dependent on the resturant, but as Custer said, away from the door is a must. I'd say not in the middle as well.

I thought the move was to not sit across from each other but next to so you can keep physical contact.

Sent from Aces Suited's laptop using 2+2 Forums

I was going to post the same thing, but then realized they're talking about tables for two people. Tables exclusively made for 2 people are usually forced to sit across from each other.

Yall never heard of footsy? Like you guys skipped middle school

Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums

Even in non made for two tables, sitting next to each other is bad. Sitting on adjacent sides is fine on a square table. Across allows for eye contact and **** like that. even across not like they are 10 feet away.

In a bar/lounge, next to each other is good.

This is what I meant