61–70 of 220 posts
This essay highlighted something for me, you actually end up having a 2x2 matrix for "work for" vs "invest in" and "startup" vs "non-startup." For example, a certain person may try increasing their wealth by investing in startups, but prefer working in a non-startup. Or another person may prefer investing in non-startups (safe, dividend paying stocks or bonds), but try increasing their wealth by working for startups.…
So basically a startup is a company whose goal is not to create a profitable business, but a company whose goal is to grow a large userbase rapidly and lure VCs to pump more money into it, because VCs just dream about finding the next google or apple and funding it in an early stage. This just emphasizes why I do not want to be a part of this scene. As DHH says: fuck doing a startup. http://vimeo.com/3899696#t=1290
I won't argue against you selecting yourself out, but your argument is incorrect. Google and Apple are insanely profitable.
I doubt that a free photo-sharing app is going to be as profitable as Apple, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I won't argue against you selecting yourself out, but your argument is incorrect. Google and Apple are insanely profitable.
Yes, that's why VCs are hoping for. I doubt that a free photo-sharing app is going to be as profitable as Apple, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
self-funding growth from profitability pretty much guarantees you are locked into a relatively slow growth rate That's an unwarranted assumption. Part of designing a startup business model is organizing growth so that you are unconstrained, so that more input produces greater output, earlier -- whether it's capital, users, employees, or support. All it takes is for one component of your business to not scale and you…
Craiglist might be an example of a self-funded growth model that was able to scale. Maybe rare, but possible.
This essay highlighted something for me, you actually end up having a 2x2 matrix for "work for" vs "invest in" and "startup" vs "non-startup." For example, a certain person may try increasing their wealth by investing in startups, but prefer working in a non-startup. Or another person may prefer investing in non-startups (safe, dividend paying stocks or bonds), but try increasing their wealth by working for startups.…
The total #s are pretty embarrassing but the growth rate actually looks good, at around 10% currently - except the rate of growth of the growth is decreasing.. how meaningful is growth rate for such short time periods?
In my case I'm closer to the first stage of just making a product people want, but seems useful to keep track of this rate already.
PS - please sign up and help a brother out.
OK. But remember the old Paul Graham, who talked about things like this: http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/03/the-startup-curve.html Seems like there's a lot of non-startup in that startup curve, if we are using the new Paul Graham's definitions.
If the diagram were data, the essay would explain it.
Arguably Netflix was one of these. DVD's may have been the "technological change" driving the company, but in principle you possibly could have done the same thing with VHS.
Most logistics-based big companies, like Fedex, Walmart, or even Costco, could be cited as examples. Jetliners predated Fedex by decades, for instance. Aside from the novelty of selling PC's, Dell was a similar instance.
This indicates that, just as in war, solving logistical problems often provides the biggest wins in business as well.
Combining innovation and logistics was powerful enough to make humble Apple erupt into the world's most valuable business. In fact, Apple's growth rate during Jobs' tenure as CEO was ultimately exponential despite the company's age--does Jobs-era Apple somehow qualify as a startup due to this?
> I once explained this to some founders who had recently arrived from Russia. They found it novel that if you threatened a company they'd pay a premium for you. "In Russia they just kill you," they said, and they were only partly joking.
I remember that in the 90's, many of Microsoft's acquisitions had this same sinister undertone to it. I'm reminded of a Simpsons episode where Microsoft "buys out" Homer's startup, but all that happens is a bunch of goons smash up the house while Bill Gates quips, "I don't get rich by writing a lot of checks."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Craiglist might be an example of a self-funded growth model that was able to scale. Maybe rare, but possible.
[deleted]
Or are you saying they are trying to grow organically (other than their Kickstarter fundraising)?