This is mostly false. Most AI features are available in some EU countries. For instance, Pixel Studio and Pixel Screenshots are available in Germany, but not in The Netherlands. I think they are dragging their feet on localization (though much Dutch people would be fine with these AI apps only accepting English input).
How is it "mostly false"? I can't access the new google.com/ai (as a most recent example). Localization is not the issue, the EU is clearly singled out due to regulation.
At least amongst Bay Area startups at your stage, a 50/50 split is common. It has its advocates (YC amongst them) and detractors.
Given how common this is, it's peculiar that this VC is bringing this up so early in the lifetime of the company. CEOs often get different refresher packages as the company grows and assembles a board, but you're not at that stage yet.
If your co-founder is happy with the current arrangement then he can just tell the VC no thanks and everyone can move on. It's your company, not your VC's.
More generally, the most troublesome part of all this is that, at your early stage, every minute spent talking about this is a minute not spent on your product and customers.
Wholeheartedly agree. I really don't see any rational basis for this, and it feels like a huge waste of emotional energy.
I guess it would be good to know: What is the good faith argument for detractors in this case? (assuming that in the 50/50 split there is a tiebreaking vote like in our case)
We have the same model as you at the company I co-founded. The only valid worry that comes to my mind is a 50-50 split with no person designated as the boss. But you already have that part sorted.
Yeah and this is where I honestly don't understand (and am suspicious of) the VC firm's take on this.
My cofounder is happy with this, I'm happy with this. We have tiebreaking and vesting built into the equation so there's no gridlock and no one can leave the company high and dry. And neither one of has complaints about each others' commitment (nights weekends, etc you name it we are "all in" and that is our expectation).
Furthermore we worked nights and weekends on this as a "project" for months before even incorporating so did not go into the equity split just on a whim.
It seems like in the cited examples all of these things were missing on some level. TLDR if someone isn't performing and there is cause to fire them that already exists and shifts the power balance significantly towards the CEO.
Each sync in Polytomic is one-way so we're not forced to deal with collisions all the time.
But you can, on a per-field basis within a sync config, declare that field not to be synced if the destination system already has a value in the corresponding field.
This setting is a proxy for deciding where your source of truth is for each field if you are indeed setting up two-way syncs.
Most customers are pulling data into their data warehouse, then syncing from queries that generate other values back into other systems. This issue doesn't come up there. But customers of ours doing two-way syncs between, say, HubSpot and Airtable or such do need to decide where the source of truth is for each field.
Each integration is supported as both a source and a destination. So you can have two one-way syncs set up between systems A and B, thus moving data in two directions.
