In the comments to my application, I addressed the need to be significantly better and clarified that we did market research to ensure that what we communicate fits. While my application is in the top five, I've received feedback that it would have fared much better had I more given more confidence that the feature set can be delivered.
I also addressed the conservative nature of the market but maybe what you don't realize is that this is a tremendous pain point for developers and businesses. We already have customers and we're not out of alpha yet. The reason there are so many high valuation exits of nascent database companies (Compose, Firebase, FoundationDB) is another sign of the value of making progress towards those ends. I think the more you learn about databases and their market, the more nuanced view you will have. It's exciting and I would encourage you to learn more.
I looked up what I classified your application under and yes you were right it was existing players.
The comments on your application really hammered two points - 1. What is about your product that is 10x better than everything else and 2. Can you deliver on your promises. You need to have much better answers of why your product is 10x better than all the alternatives and how you will ensure you deliver. This is really hard I know in this area, but it is critical to your success.
No, actually. No, I don't. Because we're not looking for investors. ('Apply HN' was a spur-of-the-moment exception and for the same reason we're not bothered if the answers fail.) We're not and here's why:
Back in 1998, web search ruled everything. The big players were Yahoo, Alta Vista, and Excite. Larry and Sergey took their Page Rank algorithm to the top minds of those companies and tried to explain why Page Rank was better, offering it for 1 million(!). (When you say 10x, we both know that the end result is the quality of the experience which can't be multiplied and that what you mean is that it is drastically, compellingly better as opposed to marginally better.) Of course, we know what happened: they had something drastically better, couldn't prove it and they were turned away. So they ended up letting the users of the technology decide. I remember thinking it was the quirky search that only I and a few nerdy friends knew about but I used it because I felt it got me better results. Then I noticed others, like my sister, starting to use it.
We're still edging into Beta and we already have customers; whatever is failing in communicating to investors is not failing in communicating to prospects. And we'll let them decide, not in conceptual foresight, but by using our service directly. We'll go one at a time. We want each one to find it drastically better for their specific need, whatever that is.
More money would help, I won't lie, but the last thing I want to do is lose time on tangents by chasing it. For example, the other question was "can we deliver?" when I had already mentioned that the core (the equivalent of implementing the PageRank algorithm) was complete and that we are in the process of packaging it. I get that they want more proof if they want to invest, and I'm not arguing that they don't deserve that. Instead, I'm arguing that they can keep their money. Should Larry and Sergey have spent time proving that their technology was "10x" and that they could execute? Or just execute? ... Exactly. We're just executing.
David “10x” is just statuplandia shorthand for substantial better than the competition.
These were not my critics of your startup, but my paraphrasing of the comments on your Apply HN application. You can choose to take them on board or not.
The reason investors care about 10x is that is what is required to convince customers to switch. Your product may well be 10x better (I am not an expert in this area so I can't answer this), but I do know that databases are an incredible crowded market with some very fierce competitors. To succeed you have to have a product that is at least 10x better and you have to be able to communicate this very clearly to your potential customers. It is great that you have customers already (hopefully paying ones), but if you want to grow rapidly you need to have a really compelling product and pitch. I wish you well.
My point was that HN comments of Page Rank would have been the same; some would have said it's not significantly better. And that's OK. Understanding what's 10x better conceptually can be difficult even for the experts.
It's all about customers: do they get the communication and do they respond to it? In our case, so far, they do.
My main point remains: you (and many HN commenters) would have scored an early Google in 'existing competition' and written it off also. And Larry and Sergey certainly wouldn't have "chosen to take that on board" because it's meaningless.
I also addressed the conservative nature of the market but maybe what you don't realize is that this is a tremendous pain point for developers and businesses. We already have customers and we're not out of alpha yet. The reason there are so many high valuation exits of nascent database companies (Compose, Firebase, FoundationDB) is another sign of the value of making progress towards those ends. I think the more you learn about databases and their market, the more nuanced view you will have. It's exciting and I would encourage you to learn more.