31–40 of 204 posts
This article seems to ignore the main argument I've heard: exit strategies are fewer in a recession. IPOs are out of the question and few companies are in an acquisition mood. So instead of growing fast and selling out before you hit your plateau, you have keep your traffic climbing until the market picks back up. That's really hard, esp. since founders have a tendency to get bored. I expect many will start something…
You should have to explain how it's going to make money, no matter the economy. Founders need to stop thinking they can just magically monetize later after reaching one fobillion users. If it happens, awesome, but don't bank on it. Google was an anomaly, but you wouldn't know it from the attitudes of others towards them.
pg was a lot more fun when he used to talk about other things than making money all the time.
This article is titled wrongly. It should not be called "Why to startup in a bad economy", but "Why to startup, even if the economy is bad".
This is confusing -- wasn't Y Combinator started in 2005? Was PG funding startups before that?
Good article, but I disagree with the Microsoft/Apple example in the beginning. MS and Apple happened to come along when the microcomputer was really starting to take off, and they were able to ride that wave (while 1000's of other microcomputer startups crashed). One thing that worries me personally about starting the "stereotypical" HN startup right now, is that I think the free/fremium model is going to lose steam…
(Here, "better" = chance of becoming profitable, and relevant to the web, for the long term; "better" != chance of cashing out for megabucks within a year or two; i.e. "better" for me as a web user.)
This article seems to ignore the main argument I've heard: exit strategies are fewer in a recession. IPOs are out of the question and few companies are in an acquisition mood. So instead of growing fast and selling out before you hit your plateau, you have keep your traffic climbing until the market picks back up. That's really hard, esp. since founders have a tendency to get bored. I expect many will start something…
So starting up now, founders should ask themselves-- what's liquidity look like in 3-5+ years? The correct answer is, "I have no clue"-- but if you start now, you'll probably have a better shot at liquidity in 3-5 years because all of the other hackers went to grad school. ;-)
"Last year you had to be prepared to explain how your startup was viral. Next year you'll have to explain how it's recession-proof." You should have to explain how it's going to make money, no matter the economy. Founders need to stop thinking they can just magically monetize later after reaching one fobillion users. If it happens, awesome, but don't bank on it. Google was an anomaly, but you wouldn't know it from th…
I agree that you shouldn't bank on getting this fobillion users and after that monetizing them. But that's because the real hard part is getting that much users in the first place.
Hmm, isn't that kind of a low bar? I worry that I'll be 40 before I know it, with no savings to show for my years of work. Isn't opportunity cost a concern?
Perhaps PG really is writing for the young.