20VC: True Ventures Founder, Phil Black on 4 Major Risk Categories for Startups, Why The Funding Gap Is At The "Rational B" Round & Why VCs Must Start Small But Think Big

Phil Black is a founder of True Ventures, one of the West Coast's leading early stage funds with a portfolio including the likes of Fitbit, recent unicorn Peloton, Automattic (makers of Wordpress) and more amazing companies. Prior to True, Phil learnt the craft of venture at Summit Partners and at the predecessor firm to Lightspeed Venture Partners. However, it was in 2003 that Phil co-founded a small angel fund, Blacksmith Capital with the mission to prove his thesis that great founders of early stage technology companies can and often prefer to start their businesses and get a lot of traction with $2.5 million or less of initial funding. In Today’s Episode You Will Learn: 1.) How Phil made is first forays into the world of VC and his big learnings in the early days of cutting his teeth in the industry? 2.) What were the big takeaways for Phil from experiencing the massive dot com boom days to experiencing the very lowest of funding environments? How did that affect his investment mindset? How does that affect his view of startup raising? 3.) What does Phil consider the 4 major risk categories for startups? What combination of risk categories mean a successful outcome is more possible? Which combination mean that Phil would likely not invest in the company? 4.) How should startups determine the "right" amount to raise for? How does Phil assess optimising runway and evaluating burn? What does Phil make of the hailed "bridge round"? WHy does Phil believe lean is always best? 5.) With considerable funds AUM how does sharing in sub $2.5m rounds provide sufficient levels of ownership to ake fund returns? What is True's required level of ownership? How does Phil assess reserve allocation and pro rata rights? Items Mentioned In Today’s Show: Phil’s Fave Blog: Om Malik, Dan Primack: Axios Phil’s Most Recent Investment: Orecco As always you can follow Harry, The Twenty Minute VC and Phil on Twitter here! Likewise, you can follow Harry on Snapchat here for mojito madness and all things 20VC. Pendo delivers the only complete platform that helps companies create great products. The Pendo Product Experience Platform enables product teams to understand product usage, collect user feedback, measure NPS, assist users, and promote new features in-app – all without requiring any engineering resources. This unique combination of capabilities helps companies improve customer satisfaction, reduce churn, and increase revenue. Pendo is the proven choice of Salesforce, Cisco, Optimizely Citrix, BMC and many more leading companies. Start a free trial at http://go.pendo.io/harry Treehouse is an online school where you can learn how to build websites and apps. Their course library has thousands of hours of content, where you can learn all sorts of topics, including Javascript, iOS, Android and more. With high-quality video instruction from real industry experts teaching you all you need to know, and quizzes and code challenges keep you engaged and on track. Learn on your own schedule and go from beginner to pro. Go to teamtreehouse.com to start your free trial.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Harry Stebbings?

  Hello and welcome back to another week in the world of the 20 minute VC with me, Harry Stebbings at H Stebbings on Snapchat. And what a week it is this week as we bring you a feature of one of the leading early-stage franchises Silicon Valley has to offer, True Ventures. On their fifth fund and with a recent $112 million Select Fund, they are, as TechCrunch calls it, "killing it." So joining me from True today, I'm thrilled to welcome Phil Black, founder at True Ventures, with a portfolio including the likes of Fitbit, namely, recent unicorn Peloton, Automattic, the makers of WordPress, and many more amazing companies. Prior to True, Phil learnt the craft of Venture Summit Partners and at the predecessor firm to Lightspeed Venture Partners. However, it was in 2003 that Phil co-founded a small angel fund, Blacksmith Capital, with the mission to prove

• 0:43Harry Stebbings?

  his thesis that great founders of early-stage tech companies can and often prefer to start their businesses and get a lot of traction with $2.5 million or less of initial funding. I do also want to say a huge thank you to Matt Strazza, namely for the intro to Phil today, without which this episode would not have been possible. But before we head into today's episode, Pendo helps companies create products that customers love. It was founded when alumni from Rally, Google, Cisco, and Red Hat combined their heads and their hearts to build something they wanted but never had as product managers, a complete platform for product teams. With Pendo, you can understand product usage and rapidly make data-driven decisions, survey users in-app for NPS and feedback, deliver contextual help to improve

• 1:24Harry Stebbings?

  UX and user onboarding, promote new features in product to drive adoption without requiring any engineering resources. Pendo is the proven choice of innovative product leaders at Salesforce, Optimizely, Citrix, and many more leading companies. Learn more today at go.pendo.io/harry. That's go.pendo.io/harry. But what if you're starting out in the industry and want to learn to code, like I was four years ago? I went to Treehouse, the online school where you can learn how to build websites and apps. Their course library has thousands of hours of content where you can learn all sorts of topics, including JavaScript, iOS, Android, and more, with high-quality video instructions from real industry experts teaching you all you need to know, and quizzes and co-challenges keeping you engaged and on track. Learn on

• 2:08Harry Stebbings?

  your own schedule and go from beginner to pro. So simply head over to teamtreehouse.com to start your free trial. But it's now time for me to hand over the mic to Phil Black, founder at True Ventures.

• 2:24Speaker 01

  You have now arrived at your destination.

• 2:27Harry Stebbings?

  Phil, it's such a pleasure to have you on the show today. A huge thanks to Matt Strazza and Namely for the intro, but thank you so much for joining me today, Phil.

• 2:33Speaker 02

  It's a pleasure. Thank you.

• 2:35Harry Stebbings?

  I'd love to get started though today by discussing how you made your foray into what I call the wonderful world of venture capital.

• 2:41Speaker 02

  Sure. I was a undergraduate out of Stanford University. Originally, I got there via my Oklahoma route. And when I was in undergrad, I had this idea that I was going to work in venture capital, investment banking, or consulting. And all three of those were the exact same thing to me, which of course, that is not the case by any means. But you know, when you're 20 years old, you don't really understand the differences of those things at the time. And so I applied for positions to all those kinds of industries and I got one job. And that was with the group Summit Partners, was at that time about a three and a half year old new venture capital firm. I joined their analyst program and stayed there for about six and a half years and then went on to do other things within staying within the venture capital world.

• 3:26Harry Stebbings?

  And I'm really interested by one very specific aspect of your past and kind of probably a large developmental period. And that's kind of the internet bubble and the time following with Blacksmith. So talk to me about that and what you learned from experiencing the crazy times of the dot com boom. And then secondly, the setting up of your own vehicle in the form of Blacksmith. So let's start with the dot com.

• 3:45Speaker 02

  Yeah, so the dot com bubble is it's often thought of as, you know, the crash of 2000. You know, the lead up to it was, you know, the really exciting times within technology investing. And everyone kind of cites the Netgate financing and the IPO as really kind of setting it off. And I think what had happened within the industry is, is, oh, well, if so and so is worth X, you know, we are worth 2X or half X or 5X, you know. And so it was everyone started using these benchmarks. And then you just kind of ratcheted yourself up to completely ridiculous valuation levels. And then of course, you had the ensuing crash in March, April 2000, was when it kind of started going down. But you know, the times from 1996, 1997 up until that point were

• 4:32Speaker 02

  Really heady days within technology and there was no such thing as financing risk in the market out there. There's this, you know, everyone wanted to invest in it and all these companies were able to raise increasingly large amounts of money and then they couldn't and there was no money. There was, there was ill liquidity in the market and so you had this, you know, horrible ratcheting down in fairly rapid fashion with all these companies having to make cuts and laying off employees and then, you know, a lot of them shutting down.

• 5:01Harry Stebbings?

  So what were the takeaways for you from seeing that kind of stark contrast?

• 5:05Speaker 02

  You know, at the time that you had all this increasing money coming into the market and then there being no liquidity, it really underscores for you as an investor that one of the four major risks of venture capital investing is financing risk. And financing risk is one of those things that, you know, you don't notice until it's right there up on you and then you as a company, you can be in trouble if, if you're exposed to that kind of, you know, financing risk at the time of the, in that market. So to me, the contrast was tremendous amounts of capital, everything could get funded to nothing could get funded and then there was this capital efficiency movement and kind of by necessity, as well as the decreasing costs required to start businesses, which could start happening, you know, in that 2000 timeframe.

• 5:49Speaker 02

  So I had a very small angel fund. I now refer to it as the first super angel fund, although I would have never have thought of that at the time.

• 5:56Harry Stebbings?

  How big was it?

• 5:57Speaker 02

  Oh, it was $4.64 million and I rounded up to 5 million to make myself, you know, sound bigger.

• 6:05Harry Stebbings?

  And so, you know, what were the takeaways then from operating that vehicle? Having seen all you had done with the starkly contrasting periods?

• 6:13Speaker 02

  Yeah, I would say that managing that 5 million dollar fund or 4.6 was probably the most seminal moment for me in my venture capital career. In the sense that you got a, a front row seat of, you know, what it means to be a fiduciary of your investors' capital and, and having to make those investment decisions and living with all, you know, all of those from start to finish. And then I think the, the part about, I didn't have a lot of money, obviously. So I was kind of drawn to companies that were More interested in the smaller rounds that could get them started. And then based upon a lot of traction in the market, they could go out and raise further capital. So it was a really important time for me to kind of become that investment fund manager.

• 6:58Speaker 02

  Everyone talks about being an investor in X, Y and Z in company. You can invest in any number of different companies that you want, but kind of having a fund. And with returns and quarterly reports and annual kind of investment return metrics that you're showing. Those were really important days for me as a fund manager.

• 7:18Harry Stebbings?

  Can I ask, what does it take to make the transition from investor in companies and board member to a real fund manager, kind of managing the whole vehicle?

• 7:26Speaker 02

  I think you just kind of have to look at it as within the holistic view of what it means to be a venture capital fund manager. So there are major blocks of time that you have to spend on that, right? Which is you have to talk to your investors, raise your capital. And then there is the investing phase, which is probably in the two to four year timeframe. And then there is the working with all of those companies as they succeed or fail. And then there is the liquidity element, the exit element from those companies. So I think as a fund manager, you have to be cognizant of the major leverage points in each of those kind of major blocks. And then you rinse and repeat, obviously, because you go back to your investors and you talk about all the wonderful investments you made and all the progress they've made and all the exits you've had.

• 8:11Speaker 02

  That is a complete life cycle of being a fund manager. And I think that's a little bit different than just like, oh, I love this company and I've invested and I'm on the board and it's doing incredibly well. So that is one part of the whole, but the whole is what I think is the element that I really, I really took away from on my little blacksmith fund.

• 8:30Harry Stebbings?

  You said there about the decreasing costs as well of starting companies. And you've said before that great founders prefer to start their business and gain traction with two and a half million, give or take, and under. So I'm intrigued with that and how you'd advise founders in the early days, raising capital in terms of really raising the right amount firstly. And how long's the right runway to go for? Is it the Jeff Clavier 24 months? Is it the more traditional 18? What would you suggest?

• 8:56Speaker 02

  Yeah, I think, you know, the the number is a little bit a function of the time, right? So for us in two thousand and five, two thousand and six, our real sweet spot was a two hundred and fifty thousand dollar investment to two and a half million or so. And that was, we felt like that was the right number to probably have somewhere between twelve to eighteen, maybe twenty months or so of runway to be able to prove what you were, you know, attempting to to complete. The the decreasing costs, I think what it what it unleashed is a whole raft of new founders who didn't have to go through a three month excruciating process to try and get five million, to then have to go out and raise another five or ten million twelve

• 9:39Speaker 02

  months later because they'd spent all that, you know, all the capital had been used on on what is now on a much more expensive resources in the past, and that those resources today are much, much less expensive. To me, there is, there is probably, you know, there's a Goldilocks moment of just the right amount of capital, right? But I think that that's a little bit case specific and each founder kind of has to to find their own sweet spot of what they're comfortable with. What I like to talk about is from a fundraising standpoint, you want time to be your friend. And when it is not your friend and you're trying to raise capital and you're trying to do it in a in a rushed frame of mind or with with as limit more limited data than what you want, that's a bad position to be in as a founder. So you need to raise enough money that allows for you to have that time where you can then

• 10:23Speaker 02

  go and raise additional capital at some form of an of an uptick that that you're comfortable with. And the problem with saying, well, we'll just raise a whole bunch more on the first round is that it's human nature. You don't divide that number by thirty six and and spend accordingly. You tend to just divide that number again by that twelve or that eighteen. And and so then you're spending a lot more money initially than what you maybe have would would spend if you had a smaller, you know, round at that time, which may be, in fact, I think, a better story for you as you then, you know, make progress and go out and raise your another round after that.

• 10:54Harry Stebbings?

  You said about kind of getting the funding that takes you to the metrics that can then raise additional capital. In in some cases, this doesn't always happen. We see it more and more now with the hailed bridge round. I'm intrigued, especially with the kind of the state. You operate at, what's your thoughts around the bridge round? Do you agree with Mike Maples in saying that it's often a peer that leads to nowhere?

• 11:14Speaker 02

  In retrospect, when they don't work out, that's what you call them. And when they do work out, you're like, oh, that was just, that was the bridge round to that, to your, to your next up round.

• 11:22Harry Stebbings?

  I think namely would be one of them, though. Bridge round, incredibly successful company.

• 11:26Speaker 02

  Yeah, I would say the, the difference to me there is it was never a bridge note per se. But there was this, you know, we did a round and then we did a, what I would call like a little stub round soon thereafter, which allowed him to do a, a technology buy that was important. But I think the, the one, so he never really had that, is that a peer or not kind of problem. But you know, what Mike is talking about really is, is you put in additional money and what are you funding towards? By definition, the bridge round probably means you're going to run out of money. So you either have to raise more money or you have to, you know, sell your business. And so if the idea is that you're going to do this bridge round and you're going to get to the next round, then I think you have to be really clear about what is it exactly that you're going to be able to show

• 12:11Speaker 02

  that is going to unleash this additional capital for you in three or six months that you can't raise right now? You're selling the future on every round of funding. So if you're unable to do it now, that the risk is, is that, you know, money just extends the issue. It doesn't solve your problem for you. And so I think that's the, the concern that most investors have around bridge rounds of, of funding.

• 12:34Harry Stebbings?

  Do you share that thesis?

• 12:35Speaker 02

  Oh, again, it's kind of case specific. I think it is, so I would go back to, so I talked about the four major risk categories, right? So there's market risk, there's product risk, there's execution risk, which is the proxy for people and, and, you know, the, the senior team. And then there's financing risk. So by definition, if you're doing a bridge round, you've got financing risk. So the other question that becomes is, is it because your product is not working? Or is it because your market hasn't evolved yet? Or is it because you've got team members who are not doing the job and shouldn't be there? And so I would say of those issues, if it really is, you know, it took a little longer for the product, but it's awesome. We just need three more months before we can have that. Customer traction, I think that the bridge round is probably going to be, it's fine.

• 13:20Speaker 02

  If it's, well, we need six more months because the market hasn't evolved yet. And we think it's going to evolve by that time, that's probably not a very good bet. And if it's, well, it turns out we don't have very good senior leadership and we need to make changes, or we're not going to make any changes, but we have bad senior leadership, that's a horrible idea.

• 13:40Harry Stebbings?

  That's a terrible realization to come to, isn't it?

• 13:44Harry Stebbings?

  But, but speaking of realizations, I think, you know, you must credit yourself, as you said, the first super angel fund, with kind of foreseeing that decreasing cost of capital proliferate throughout startup ecosystem. So I'm intrigued though, how that means you view the proliferation of seed funds that we've seen since then, and the early stage landscape then at present, how do you view that?

• 14:04Speaker 02

  You know, my co-founder, John Callahan and I, we, um, when we started out in 2005 timeframe, I like to say that if you start a brand new firm, you need to be able to answer two questions. One, which is why in the world does the world need yet another new venture capital fund? And secondly, if, if that, if you answer that question, then, you know, why are you all the ones to do that? And for us, the answer to question number one was that, that the angel money had kind of dried up because so many people had just been burned, not too many years ago, on all their, you know, internet.com buff stocks. So they didn't feel very rich and the large firms had gotten larger and they had large initial capital requirements for their checks. So we were able to have an institutional fund at 165 million and we could say, we'll whatever size check you want,

• 14:48Speaker 02

  Mr. Mr. Entrepreneur, and that was for us, you know, that 250 to 2 and a half million. And that was kind of unique back then. Fast forward to today, there's, there are tremendous sources of capital in lots of different corners of the world. And many of those corners are here, obviously in, in the Bay Area. But I, I think that more capital for the system is, to start businesses is, is probably a good thing. We will never be able to do all the early stage seed deals that are out there, nor should we. And so I think it's fine, we as a firm though, have to kind of stick to what it is that we do best. And we as a firm have a set of beliefs and Offerings to to the founders that come to us that I think make us an outstanding option. You know, having said that, we're still not going to get every deal.

• 15:33Speaker 02

  You know, every opportunity to invest in a founder and their business is not something that we're going to, you know, be able to do. So it's good. There's more competition. There's more money out there. More kind of crazy ideas are going to get funded. A lot of people are going to lose a lot of money, but that's the nature of the startup game.

• 15:48Harry Stebbings?

  I I'm intrigued. Did you see any particular funding gaps or inefficiencies when you look at the market? Having seen both in hindsight, kind of the development and now kind of the proliferation. Are there any kind of inherent gaps or inefficiencies?

• 16:00Speaker 02

  Right now in today's funding market, I, you know, to me, the the gap that has been present for a while has been what we've referred to as the rational B round, you know. And that historically has been kind of a three to five, five to seven million dollar round of funding. The company has made good progress, but they're not scaling rapidly yet. But, you know, they've got customers, they've got product. It hasn't reached critical mass on the revenue scale yet. And so that's a tough round, I think, to get done because lots of people wanted to do the first little bit of money in something. And lots of money wants to go to the companies that, you know, appear to be the sure thing. But it's that good size amount of capital into something that is still, you know, kind of fairly risky.

• 16:41Speaker 02

  But it has been de-risked to a large degree because they can show you customer use cases and references and the like. But that's a harder round to get done, I think.

• 16:49Harry Stebbings?

  And and then I'm intrigued in terms of kind of with particular respect to True. How do you look to operate at such early stages today with with considerable kind of assets under management as you do have with True?

• 17:01Speaker 02

  Well, you kind of go back to your first principles. And what is it that we started True based upon? And that was based upon the idea that the things that we care about are founders going after big, what we call blue ocean markets. So not yet formed necessarily, and that we're raising an amount of money at a price that we were that we were comfortable with. Those three things haven't changed. So we today, we're still looking for an outstanding founder or founders, usually one to four, going after a big market opportunity. And the markets are different. We're never going to go after another fitness counter. Step counter kind of idea. That's old and in the market now. But in two thousand eight, Fitbit was a really intriguing investment opportunity to us.

• 17:44Speaker 02

  So we just have to stay current with kind of what's on the horizon. But the but the first principle upon how we want to go after those investments has not changed. And I think that allows us to rally the entire firm around, you know, a common ideal and a common investment thesis that is, I think, very powerful for us as a firm as we, you know, as we have more capital.

• 18:06Harry Stebbings?

  I guess I'm asking more from a portfolio construction thesis in terms of does small, small checks actually bring enough to the table for you now at True with the significant AUM in terms of ownership?

• 18:17Speaker 02

  So we care about ownership in the underlying company, not so much about, oh, I've got ten million in or I've got two million in or I've got twenty two million in. So our thesis is a small to modest size check for our first investment. You know, a significant minority ownership. And then you just stay with that company through their life cycle of of investing. So, you know, we start small, but we don't think small. That's what John likes to say. So, you know, we've got some companies where we've got ten, fifteen, twenty million invested. But it started off as a one, two million dollar check or even a half million dollar check. So.

• 18:51Harry Stebbings?

  So it's an optionality play as well?

• 18:53Speaker 02

  Yeah, I care less about, you know, money invested. And we care more about efficiency and, you know, for us, ownership and and being a significant partner for for those founders.

• 19:04Harry Stebbings?

  I'd love to dive into a quick fire round with you now, though. So I say a short statement and then you hit me with your immediate thoughts, about sixty seconds per one. How does that sound?

• 19:12Speaker 02

  Okay, great.

• 19:13Harry Stebbings?

  So let's do convertible notes and safes. Good or get rid of them and why?

• 19:18Speaker 02

  Oh, they're okay, but it's kind of like alcohol and it shouldn't only be used in moderation.

• 19:23Harry Stebbings?

  Okay. What about your favorite book and why?

• 19:26Speaker 02

  So when I was growing up, it was Where the Red Fern Grows. That was really spoke to me in my, like I said, my Southern Oklahoma roots. You know, you you move on to Bonfire or the Vanities in the eighties, which was, you know, all the rage around excess and money and Wall Street. And then I've I've mellowed in my age here and and one that I just. Mostly loved was the Patty Hearst book and just all the history of San Francisco and the story behind that. So a little kind of cross section of of as I grew up.

• 19:54Harry Stebbings?

  My word, you have mellowed, Phil.

• 19:57Harry Stebbings?

  Let's discuss your throughout the career, the biggest mentor and how the relationship came about.

• 20:02Speaker 02

  Oh, my biggest mentor for for sure was the gentleman who hired me out of undergrad. So his name is Greg Davis and he was at Summit and I worked for him for six and a half years the entire time. And to this day, he's been a mentor to to John and to me, because John was also at Summit. And he's just been a fantastic person for me in my life.

• 20:23Harry Stebbings?

  And then your favorite blog or newsletter, what are the must reads when they come in?

• 20:27Speaker 02

  Well, you know, my partner, O Malick, is a good blogger, so you should always listen to him and follow him on Twitter. Because he's he's got all the the good stuff. I really like Dan Primack within venture capital news and everything. He's now at Axios.

• 20:42Harry Stebbings?

  Yep.

• 20:42Speaker 02

  Um, and then what else have I been doing? Well, those are the two for sure.

• 20:46Harry Stebbings?

  The top three unicorn companies in trouble today.

• 20:49Speaker 02

  Yeah, so I had a Twitter post about this about, I don't know, nine months ago. And I said, my three favorite unicorns that I think are in trouble were, at that time, Jet.com, Zeniths and Magic Leap. And then Walmart goes and buys Jet for $3 billion. So I thought I I just thought the world was so unfair when uh for that.

• 21:09Harry Stebbings?

  For that to happen. That's where you don't make predictions public.

• 21:14Speaker 02

  Yeah, exactly. It's kind of like, what? You gotta be kidding me. That would have, they could have had that for a dollar if they just would have waited. So, you know, the the unicorn status, one of our investors said, this is kind of funny. He's like, oh, my God, I've got so many unicorns in my extended portfolios. Like, I just hope that there's no virus that overcomes all the unicorns out there in the field. Because that was going to have a big net F value decrease for them, so.

• 21:37Harry Stebbings?

  That's fantastic. And then and then let's finish on your most recent publicly announced investment and why you said yes.

• 21:43Speaker 02

  Yeah, I was thinking about that. I think the the most recent one is this company called Oreco, which is out of Ireland. And they are in the personalized sports medicine for initially elite.

• 21:56Speaker 02

  Athletes, but also it'll it'll come down to those, you know, down to the weekend warrior, if you will. And I think the part that was interesting to us was this idea that you could use a reference set of of blood work and through some magical algorithms and, you know, artificial intelligence applied to blood and medicine data, they can come up with a predictive model for if you're at risk for, you know, injury like a hamstring pull and they can help with rest and recovery if you've been hurt. So there's some fascinating work that is coming out around health data and and a recode just happens to have, we thought, some really interesting algorithms and and reference blood work for athlete. And I think more and more people want

• 22:38Speaker 02

  to know as much about their body as possible and they're at the forefront of that.

• 22:42Harry Stebbings?

  Well, Phil, it's been such a pleasure to have you on the show. I can't thank you enough for joining me, but it's been so much fun.

• 22:47Speaker 02

  Excellent. Thank you so much, Harry.

• 22:50Harry Stebbings?

  And if you enjoyed listening to the show today as much as I did recording the show with Phil, then you can follow him on Twitter and check out this handle Mr Velvet. It really is a must. Also, we'd love to see you behind the scenes and you can follow us on Snapchat at H Stebbings with two Bs. It'd be great to see you there. But before we leave you today, Pendo helps companies create products that customers love. It was founded when alumni from Rally, Google, Cisco and Red Hat combined their heads and their hearts to build something they wanted but never had as product managers, a complete platform for product teams. With Pendo, you can understand product usage and rapidly make data-driven decisions, survey users in app for NPS and feedback, deliver contextual help to improve UX and user onboarding, promote new

• 23:32Harry Stebbings?

  features in product to drive adoption without requiring any engineering resources. Pendo is the proven choice of innovative product leaders at Salesforce, Optimizely, Citrix and many more leading companies. Learn more today at go.pendo.io/harry. That's go.pendo.io/harry. But what if you're starting out in the industry and want to learn to code like I was four years ago? I went to Treehouse, the online school where you can learn how to build websites and apps. Their course library has thousands of hours of content where you can learn all sorts of topics, including JavaScript, iOS, Android and more with high-quality

• 24:06Harry Stebbings?

  Video instructions from real industry experts teaching you all you need to know and quizzes and co-challenges keeping you engaged and on track. Learn on your own schedule and go from beginner to pro. So simply head over to teamtreehouse.com to start your free trial. As always, we so appreciate all your support and we cannot wait to bring you True Ventures Part Two with the other co-founder, John Callahan.