A few thoughts in SaaS:

• Product-market fit is precious.  It's far, far harder to achieve than you might think.  So once you have 10 Unaffiliated Customers -- we wary of pivoting.  Instead, think about how to get to 20.  Then 100.  And how to increase your pricing and deal size so those 100 or 1000 customers generate enough revenue to pay the rent.  More on this here: If You Have 10 {Unaffiliated} Customers in SaaS — You Have Something.
• It often takes far longer to get real traction with a paid product than a free one.  And "free" users don't count in SaaS, not really.  So budget more time.  It will not only take you 7-10 years to build something big ... but it may take you 12 months just to get a single paid customer.  Or even longer. >> Budget 24 months to iterate and see if you can make it to Initial Traction in SaaS <<.  Anything less just isn't enough time.  More on this here: https://www.saastr.com/if-youre-...

Here's a great presentation from the '17 SaaStr Annual on iterating, expanding, learning ... but also staying committed:
"Morphing into a Rocketship: Learning to Love Sales" at SaaStr Annual…

Your pivot shows a lack of conviction in your core business model.
A pivot is usually referred to an operational/strategic change in direction caused by a lack of traction but you are proposing a pivot based on lack of traction on attracting investment capital.
Your core technology appears to be your ability to convert ocean waves to electricity.  You haven't been successful in attracting investment so you propose "switching" to power generation from solar power versus ocean power.
Investors will be attracted to a solid business model which is underpinned by defensible technology or perhaps a plan with execution advantages (i.e. first to market).  Based on the fact that you feel you can switch out your technology approach so easily my guess is that there is nothing proprietary with your technology and you your model is based on superior execution.  A first to market or better to market play.
Does solar offer pricing advantages to wave energy conversion?  Is it easier to deploy? Are there other advantages?  If so, then I'd question why you went down the ocean wave energy path to begin with but let's get past that.
My main question is, why did investors pass on the original investment thesis?  Were they nervous about the technology or the business model?  Were they worried that you would have to depend on non-profit funding for customers?  If the wave technology was the sticking point then perhaps moving to solar makes sense if it's cheaper/more reliable/easier to implement (some or all of these).
Assuming investors had an issue with the technology delivering the energy and not the business model then you can try pivoting to solar.  You will have a difficult time going back to the same investors though as they will view you new pitch as "Ok, you didn't like the old plan....how about this one."  They will worry about your lack of conviction.
On the other hand, you will be giving credit for listening to the investor concerns and shown flexibility. 
If the business model around selling energy to coastal homes in Africa is the issue, then you need to step back and focus on this aspect of the business, not the energy generation method.
#vc #pivot #startups 

From consumer to industrial verticals, the Internet of Things (IoT) is touching all types of business and use cases. Our prior research has examined startups working in general IoT,Industrial IoT, and healthcare IoT. While funding to certain IoT sub-categories such aswearables has cooled off, the IoT has broadly experienced a steady growth in funding.Quarterly financing historyLooking into the quarterly history, Q1’16 is one of the strongest quarters for the IoT yet in funding terms at $846M in financing, second only to Q2’15. The funding jump in Q1’16 marks a 31% growth in dollars quarter-over-quarter (funding was also up compared to the same quarter a year prior).
Interestingly, deals suffered their third-straight quarterly drop and slipped to 70, the lowest since Q1’14. The large dollar tally and low deal volume indicates that deal sizes on average are increasing.
Large Q1’16 deals included a $165M Series F to Jawbone, a $75M Series C to Razer, and a $61.2M Series C to smart-doorbell maker Ring. 
Deal share by stageIn the past 5 quarters, deals to IoT companies skewed heavily toward the early-stage.
Seed and Series A saw the majority of activity, accounting for 55% of deals in that time period. Mid-stage made up 22% of deals, and only 7% were late stage.




Most active investorsWith Q1’16 deal activity in the tally, Intel Capital remains the most active IoT investor in IoT startups. Intel Capital most recently most recently participated in a March 2016 Series C round to Stratoscale, a cloud computing startup focused on IoT applications.
Next most active was a tie between Andreessen Horowitz and Qualcomm Ventures. Qualcomm most recently coinvested with Intel Capital on the Stratoscale deal. And Andreessen Horowitz counts recent bets on Airware and Skydio, along with neurotechnology headset maker Halo Neuroscience, among its investments.
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers was particularly active in Q1’16, with investments in 4 IoT companies in the quarter. Their Q1’16 deals included rounds to Ring, Motiv, Enlighted, andAirware.
See the full list below:
Most Active VCs in IoT
2011 – 2016 YTD (3/31/16)
RankInvestor
1Intel Capital
2Qualcomm Ventures
2Andreessen Horowitz
4Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
5Khosla Ventures
6Foundry Group
6GE Ventures
8New Enterprise Associates
8True Ventures
8Cisco Investments

source : https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/iot-funding-startups-q1-2016/?utm_source=CB+Insights+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fd8aa36698-MondayNL_04_11_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9dc0513989-fd8aa36698-86761441
​