Tim CapesIt's progress, but the ambiguous staying terms kind of suck. I'd really hate to be worrying about unclear policy and responses at bureaucratic time scales when scaling a start-up. If you want to back start-up based immigration, there should be more stability. Maybe: 30-day voiding if company goes bankrupt (similar to other conditional work VISAs), otherwise on 4/5-year renewals with clearly posted targets for whether a 4/5-year renewal will be approved, and the ability to apply for exceptions in some circumstances. Right now this VISA is shorter than a NAFTA VISA with a more ambiguous renewal process despite the fundraising bar for entry seeming much higher than a NAFTA bar. It's also a limited enough VISA that any start-up founder who can get an O-1 instead is better off doing so.
Hi SN, We are issuing our first press release next week. Any suggestions on the channel. Also we are seeking an English copywriter to review the text. Please message me if you have recommendations of any of these. Big thanks! ... See MoreSee Less
Amazingly hyped to kick off bilingual content on BetaKit today. Wouldn't be possible without Gabrielle Drouin and Lauren Jane holding it down in MTL. This is very new for us, so please don't hesitate to post (constructive) feedback. We'll continue to work and make our process better.
Georgian Partners has secured US$375 million ($485 million) for its third growth equity fund, winning limited partners over to an investment strategy that adds to the firm’s pioneering focus on applied analytics. The Toronto-based firm announced the close of Georgian Partners Growth Fund III this we...
Great interview with WLU Lazaridis Business School Dean Micheál Kelly on Lazaridis Institute's initiative to help Canadian companies scale globally through their Scale Up Program.
"Our goal at the institute is to build a network of top talented people who are practitioners, who’ve been on the battle lines of a lot of these companies, and who really understand the challenges that they’re going to face."
Question for my fellow SNs. We use Grasshopper + Vonage as our in-house phone combo for inbound sales/support. It's been less than reliable to say the least, so I was wondering if anyone had better options to propose? ... See MoreSee Less
Joseph TeoHey Yves We run our sales and support off Skype. It's $9.99/month and you get your own skype number and unlimited calling across north america. Get your own Skype number (We got a NY one so that it's familiar to our customers and prospect) and you can forward it to your local number as well. Been working great for us! Hope that helps :)
2 days ago
Yogi YoganathanCheck out aircall.io don't use them but they are doing some cool things
Ali H DinaniInteresting - We use Talkdesk for support at CareGuide and our team loves it. The only problem is that their analytics platform isn't great.
2 days ago · 1
Rodrigo Madrizvonage has worked for me at my home for about 5 years. Not one glitch. I understand VOIP.ms is as good but you may expect an inferior service level (e.g. by email) vs. a call center. Voip.ms is significantly cheaper too
2 days ago
Colin SampaleanuI like voip.ms. They are very reliable, have great support, and are way cheaper than Vonage. I don't know why somebody would pay the premium for Vonage given the other options out there...
2 days ago · 2
Jevon MacDonaldIf it's for anything customer facing, don't be cheap! Get a high quality route -- something like trulywireless.com/ -- Twilio, Grasshopper, etc are NOT good enough or reliable enough IMO.
2 days ago · 1
Brian SharwoodWe use Talkdesk and it's been solid. I think we've got about 6-7 agent licences on it. Grasshopper is really just for 1-5 people. Vonage is really just for single use.
2 days ago · 1
Yves BoudreauThanks for all the input everyone! Will look into some of to options provided.
1 day ago · 1
Simran KambojWhy not just get a dedicated connection using SIP going to the pstn? Who is your internet provider?
Douglas SoltysVery interesting stuff. Is it silly of me to ask though what type of illegal questions Melissa Shapiro Nightingale is referring to in the piece? I didn't even know that was a thing, honestly.
Kamil RextinI've been told about simillar experiences from men and women and some have happened to me. Thank you for writing about this :) There's always this massive power imbalance in hiring that I find odd, it should always be a mutually respectful process.
Krista PawleyHad a similar experience with a high profile startup - people need to remember that the community is small and a hard earned reputation can quickly destroyed by terrible experiences like these. All the fancy perks in the world don't mean a thing if candidates don't feel respected. Who wants to work with jerks?!
Nicole KellyYES. I hear this way too often. Oftentimes I attribute it to complete oblivion on the CEO's part (or whoever is doing the interview) on how to actually assess “culture fit". IMO, that was the best interview she has ever had. She was able to get a true sense of what the leadership entails at that company before joining the team. I don't chalk this up to just interview questions and pipeline, but signs of being a poor leader overall and how that likely resonates in other aspects of the company and this person's decision making.
Sarah Prevette and I co-authored a piece in the Globe today on our technical talent shortages here in Canada - and how the government can help address as part of the upcoming innovation agenda. ... See MoreSee Less
Abhishek MathurWell written! To take this article to the next level ... what are your thoughts on producing tech talent in Canada vs. retaining tech talent in Canada?
Engineering schools in Canada are producing fantastic tech talent, but a fair portion of my friends and acquaintances interested in tech are leaving Canada. What's the government's role in that?
Matthew HollingsheadI'd also put the onus on companies to focus on expanding the capabilities of the talent that is available. Knowledge sharing and internal mentoring can help develop and inspire your employees. As I grow our team, I see it as an opportunity to mould talent.
Citizenziggy EsQobarAirbnb comes close second at well over 2B.
global business models that require litigating at the municipal level are a massive ongoing legal expense... but if they can hold out they will entrench themselves a virtual monopoly.
Varun MathurMichael Mahon Couldn't disagree more (perhaps you did that intentionally to start this debate :)) This is going to be the one of the greatest tech companies of the 21st century:
1. Uber as a startup is close to having a near-monopoly on the ridesharing market in the US (how long will Lyft survive as an independent startup ?)
2. And, still, it has only just scratched the market - with less than 15% of US consumers having ever used Uber/Lyft. Pew Research poll.
3. Tapped into a blue-ocean of non-taxi drivers, converted a large number of people to drive casually.
4. Unlike every other on-demand startup, Uber drivers actually make money - "good enough" for them to hang around using it (I have been moonlighting in Uber driver forums for past several months and see it first-hand).
5. Uber is expanding into delivery of anything and everything - moving people and goods. It will decimate other startups operating in this space unless they can find a specific niche.
6. Brand - consumers love it.
7. Data - Uber has extensive data and leverages it effectively to manage supply/demand. Surge pricing.
8. Platform/API - It is embedding itself gradually to be a viable alternative means of transport. For instance, through Google Maps, you can trigger ordering an Uber now and see ETA. Using Uber API you can plug your app/bot to leverage Uber's driver network.
9. Vision/driverless cars - Its partnership with Volvo, and the ability/ambition to equip cars with self-driving car kits is a better vision for adoption of self-driving cars than the one which calls for buying one outright. An Uber de-facto operating system allowing fully-autonomous cars to go out and make money during the day moving people and supplies, 20 years from now, doesn't seem too far-fetched.
10. Sheer aggression, attitude and war mentality of its leadership team led by Travis.
Matt Burnsinvesting in the future > generating profits in the present imo
3 days ago · 1
Michael HofwellerTheir biggest expense is paying human drivers. Based on what I've read lately my opinion they're using human drivers only for deep global market penetration and product validation but will recoup that in the long run as they eliminate humans and replace them with self driving cars. Just taking a guess :p
3 days ago · 3
Mathieu LachaînePeople saying they have a "monopoly"... the problem is there is virtually no switching cost... and I'd rather take an autonomous Tesla, I respect the CEO's mission much more.
Mathieu LachaîneTwo Questions:
1. how much did Tesla lose up to date ? I believe it is still losing $ after 10 years, no ?
2. are those companies capitalizing R&D? I believe most US startups don't, and that can make a huge difference in accounting losses.
Julien SmithYeah how is this even a conversation we are having? You think the best venture firms in the world are idiots? I know people at massive, massive funds that now REGRET passing on Uber at 16b valuation. This is a common sentiment.
Honestly I think a lot of this reeks of jealousy whenever it comes up. It's a shame. Canada can do better than to hate on others to pull themselves up.
Florent VilmartYou know a lot of startup with $1B revenues? This is already big... bigger than anything else. So big it can hemorrhage $2B
3 days ago
James MartindaleTheir annual revenue is close to $4 billion and grew 18% in a quarter. I don't think anyone will panic until the revenue growth starts to slow. It's a sustainable business model with that revenue and investors will continue to allow them to burn cash to establish further penetration.
Sandy ScottWhat I found interesting was the massive difference between gross and net revenue. Net revenues relative to gross revenues is actually shrinking (25% to 22%) - suggests they are actually accelerating subsidies or somehow redistributing margins to others somewhere...given their competitive stature, I wouldn't have thought this necessary (at this point...3 years ago, sure, but now? with 80+% share?). Also, operating losses GREW from quarter to quarter, meaning spending is growing at a meaningfully higher rate than the revenue is. So they continue to accelerate subsidies, as well as operating expenses, at a faster rate than their 18-20% growth rate.
I am a huge uber user and fan...well, except when surge is like 4x like it is right now in Toronto! And I have to believe that some regions, like Canada, have to be profitable (if regions like Canada weren't, given there is basically no competition, then there would be REALLY MEANINGFUL SIGNAL there in my opinion). Anyway, some dudes that are WAY smarter than me thinking about this one inside the Company and am sure they know what they're doing.
3 days ago · 1
Dan SeamanThe $9B their investors have given them is entirely to fund growth not profit. Ride sharing is a winner take all land grab.
Boris MannFor basic contracts, especially around custom development (either you providing it or you contracting it) we really should just have free high quality templates available. Here's mine -- [email protected]/sample-consulting-agreement-8300bcbe538
So, which law firm in Canada is actually going to go all 21st century and provide a set of these?!?!?!?!!?
Kelly McGregorIf you're involved with Velocity (you appear to be from uw), there's a lawyer/advisor who has done some work for us that we are happy with and she offers free to cheap rates for velocity companies. Email me at [email protected] and I'll refer you.