31–40 of 69 posts
> as tough for any Web2 startups outside of AI (and soon for them too)
says who?
> And it will get worse because new funds are (not) being raised right now,
Wait are they or they aren't? And is there some data to support this? I am not saying it's incorrect but it'll be good to support this with some sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's easy for you, it's easy for your competitors too. IMHO, how easy it is to start a startup is dictated by the competition, not the accessibility of the underlying technology. The tech is always the state of the art at the current time. But that doesn't have any bearing on markets, resources, hiring, etc.
Not really, competitors can be antiquated. A ten year old tech stack can be very hard to pivot away from, and easy to catch up to with modern programming
Shallow ahistorical analysis. Apple and Microsoft were born in the oil shocks of the late 70s and survived Volcker’s high rates through the early 80s. Google barely took off before the tech crash wiped out the Valley in 2001. Many companies we use today were young and dicey affairs during the 2008-2009 financial crash. Just because the bloom is off the rose, and both VCs and financial tourists like Tiger are overfund…
Maybe but Apple, Google, and Microsoft are improbable anomalies.
Most startups fail regardless of the economic climate.
Shallow ahistorical analysis. Apple and Microsoft were born in the oil shocks of the late 70s and survived Volcker’s high rates through the early 80s. Google barely took off before the tech crash wiped out the Valley in 2001. Many companies we use today were young and dicey affairs during the 2008-2009 financial crash. Just because the bloom is off the rose, and both VCs and financial tourists like Tiger are overfund…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You now need to be more realistic about what is a lifestyle business or something that can be bootstrapped into a solid medium sized business through slow methodical growth I sort of dislike the term "lifestyle business" as to me the term implies something you can do without working too hard at it--which is not necessarily the case. That said, I agree that putting a bunch of the background tech and supporting servic…
I'm really just using it because it's a known term, I've never been a giant fan of it either. It has a sort of implication of being lesser in certain circles, and I don't really think that's the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
General thesis is cream always rises to the top even in high interest rate environments. Crappy, pointless startups will struggle and wither without the easy credit spigot. So yeah, it's legit and always has been.
Are these crappy, pointless startups (“a student raising 1 million on an idea”) in the room with us right now?
The era of startups isn't over. The era of low quality startups certainly is though, which is basically the point this article makes at the end among the general doomery. This in my opinion, is great news. Being a startup can be conceived of as one possible path taken as an early phase in the business cycle, hard to see that changing. What is changing is now you have to be more realistic about justifying to others th…
>You now need to be more realistic about what is a lifestyle business or something that can be bootstrapped into a solid medium sized business through slow methodical growth I sort of dislike the term "lifestyle business" as to me the term implies something you can do without working too hard at it--which is not necessarily the case. That said, I agree that putting a bunch of the background tech and supporting servic…
It’s a healthy thing. Getting back to building on bootstraps means building fundamental value again. If that scares you, or makes you think we are doomed, you might think twice about that perspective. Downmarket trends make companies solve real problems that generate real revenues and get rid of the easy money that supports unsustainable business models. They clear out of cruft of technologists who only come to the v…
A million is very little capital to raise (literally a 2 senior engineers team over 2 years), and no one “make bank” over raising that.
I did not use it as an example because of the merit of its amount, merely because it was the quote in the post:
> Remember stories like "I was a student, I got an idea, so I raised a million and hired a team"? It’s safe to say we can forget about them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are these crappy, pointless startups (“a student raising 1 million on an idea”) in the room with us right now?
I think the contention is that there are fewer of them now than before the recent interest rate shock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe but Apple, Google, and Microsoft are improbable anomalies.
They are. That’s why they’re called “unicorns.” Most startups fail regardless of the economic climate.
Apple, Google and Microsoft are on an completely different level of anomaly.