should i be responding off-list? (especially since i am over quota for today?). assuming that this is of general interest:
kelley,
i have some limited experience working with VCs. they give you money, they get part of the company. what part of the company decides of course the level of control they have over you. and what part of the company they get depends of course on when you go to them for money. the earlier you go, the less revenue you are already making, the more the amount of work you have to do before releasing a product, the greater the chunk they get.
once they do get control over you, how they act depends on the VC. some of them are very hands on, which is a good thing at times and not so at other times. a bad VC does not understand your space or technology and uses what they know to control you: cut costs, let go of people, etc. a good VC can bring you good contacts, effective management if you lack it (say, your company is geek heavy), help level the playing field for you against an established giant with vast resources (no i do not hate microsoft ;-)) and of course the ability to grow fast.
the more you trust the need and power of your product, the less you need external leverage (money, contacts), the more you are independently stable, the less you need a VC, but also, therefore the greater your bargaining power with them, should you desire to grow fast.
why do you think its a bad idea to go to a VC?
--ravi