While I agree with some of the author's points, such as considering your tolerance/appetite for working within a chaotic environment before joining a startup, the article seems less about deciding whether to take a startup job and more about why one should choose to work at an agency instead of in-house for their first role.
>4. You need to be going wider than deep right now.
The author's argument is roughly that working a at a startup is limiting because you will work only a single problem because a startup is focused on solving only a single problem.
I disagree.
1. A company that seeks to solve a single problem is a company that has focus; I would argue that many startups lack focus. Many startups do not know the specific problem that they are solving nor for whom. Much time is spent on product/market fit. So, I disagree with the premise that startups are solving for a single problem. Successful ones do, yes, and that brings me to (2).
2. The idea that you will work more broadly at a successful, time-tested company than you would at a startup does not seem accurate. Startups are known for allowing people to wear many hats for a reason (because they often require people to wear many hats). For individual contributors, roles at a Fortune 50 company will be far more specialized – and opportunities to join projects even slightly outside your domain of expertise will be far less prevalent.
This is why I think the argument is really about in-house vs. agency work. Agency work will teach you their methods and provide you with exposure to a range of clients and industries, sure.
3. The premise that because your startup is focused on solving a single problem, you will not get to work on a variety of problems or get to 'try different things' makes me scratch my head... If only solving a problem were that simple, that efficient!