Live data from Hacker News

The Genius of Starting a Company Without Outside Capital

boss.blogs.nytimes.com

1–10 of 18 posts

Re: The Genius of Starting a Company Without Outside Capital

#3
post #2

I thought this might be a story about a worker-owned cooperative ... but it looks like it's just a few founders who brought their own money into the business (not uncommon) and who are now looking for outside capital (also not uncommon).

Do you have any good stories about worker collectives? I'm interested in them and am always looking for information beyond what is provided by a basic google search.

Re: The Genius of Starting a Company Without Outside Capital

#5
Unsurprisingly, at least to those who follow craft brewing, "contract brewing" is one of the ways to start a brewing business at relatively lower risk (with the other being "brew pubs"). (This is according to various books, such as "Brewing Up a Business" (by Sam Calagione of Dogfish Head Brewery) and "Beer School" (by Steve Hindy and Tom Potter of Brooklyn Brewery), as well as conversations with contract brewers.)

To the "beer geeks", there's seemingly an ongoing debate whether a contract brewery is a "real" brewery. But that's another discussion...

Re: The Genius of Starting a Company Without Outside Capital

#6
the text is wrong. it's not a "brewer without a brewery". It's maybe the opposite.

the brewery and it's brewer are making the beer. This is just a case of a salesman without a factory.

The car analogy is trying to buy a new battery. there's 3 factories, and 999 brands. The work to know which battery will not fail you sooner is to find out which factory puts out the brand you can get cheap on your area. With the beer it's the same. the recipe can be great, but which brewery is making which batch, with water from where?

Re: The Genius of Starting a Company Without Outside Capital

#7
It can work. As a young engineer I started a primarily-software business in the early 90's and was too independent and unsophisticated to even consider outside investment. Honestly I wouldn't have known where to start - there was no public internet yet. I did however bring in a trustworthy partner with a completely different set of innate skills to complement mine. Both of us worked hard, used credit cards when we needed to but had to make money all along the way, followed the demand to design our products, grew the business and finally sold it when the dot-com era was peaking. Even though we weren't really a dot-com, money was flowing freely then in many areas around it. I was old enough to remember the housing boom/bust of the S&L era and I was betting the dot-com era was unsustainable too. There is always luck involved to some extent and it was a white-knuckled ride but in hindsight the worst case outcome was corporate or personal bankruptcy and we were young and would have had plenty of time to recover. I know others who have similar stories.

Re: The Genius of Starting a Company Without Outside Capital

#8
There are loads of profitable bootstrapped companies. Not taking outside investment can definitely slow your growth, but you own it 100% and can dictate the direction that you are going in. You also don't get some of the pressure that funded companies sometimes get. I know a number of seriously successful companies that were started without funding or investment - many of them are quietly getting on with making money :)

Re: The Genius of Starting a Company Without Outside Capital

#10
The software equivalent of this would be the proverbial jackpot. A project a few guys could hack together in a few weeks that generates huge cash-flow relative to invested time, which is trivially scaled, and which needs no future growth so those founders could trivially sustain it. Such ventures are usually fad-centric and unsustainable, from what I've seen.

At some point, they'll likely have to scale out scope and then need to hire people, but would anyone really want to work for a jackpot start-up that doesn't offer any equity, even if the salary is competitive?

I don't think I'd want to work for people who kept all the equity for themselves and are necessarily making off like bandits with business value I generate. I feel this is a recipe for extremely high turnover in the software world.

But hey, that's me. What do I know?

Post reply on HN