13 ms·
See, the problem that I think people are missing is that VC funding is no longer a means to an end. Implicit in your comment is that a company without VC fundi
by BitGeek 19y ago
See, the problem that I think people are missing is that VC funding is no longer a means to an end.
Implicit in your comment is that a company without VC funding cannot grow as fast as a company with VC funding.
That was true ten years ago when a lot of costs were unavoidable: Server hardware ,server software, and you had to build a lot of software infrastructure from scratch.
Now all that is cheap, or free, and what isn't comes with lease terms.
Thus, lacking a big pile of money is not an inhibitor to growing big fast.
- brett 19y agoI never claimed VC funding is required for quick (or expansive growth). There are obvious examples where that's not the case. I'm not sure how you can claim that VC funding is not a means to an end. There are clearly cases in which a lot of cash helps. Startups use money for many more things than servers. If you're pursuing cash for equity for no reason and do not really need it, then yes of course that's a bad idea. If you're preemptively avoiding cash for equity without considering if it can help you get where you want to go, however, that's also a bad idea.
- BitGeek 19y agoThat's true, but I'm assuming that nobody here is working on a startup that's building medical devices, a manufacturing plant, or has a high government regulatory burden. So, for your basic consumer oriented web startup, you don't need VC funding...