4 ms·

Seems to me you missed the point. If you try to make a billion dollar business, you're more likely to fail completely and end up with nothing. If you go in wit

by ebbv 11y ago

Seems to me you missed the point. If you try to make a billion dollar business, you're more likely to fail completely and end up with nothing. If you go in with more reasonable expectations and a more sustainable approach, you're more likely to be successful, whether the end result is a million dollar business or a billion dollar one. Starting off with the attitude of "a billion or nothing" makes you more likely to fail to accomplish anything.

brudgers 11y ago
I didn't miss the point. I just happen not to agree with it 100%, by which I mean that building any sort of business that just survives tends to be incredibly hard work and high risk, and even then most don't build long term value or throw off six figure salaries year in and out. 37 Signals is still a unicorn, just not in the VC sense. That's why another 36 similar companies don't immediately leap to mind. The quantum step in risk is from wage worker to self-employee, and two year's toil with no net income for a little thing makes less sense than for a big thing. The article pretends that little things are sure things. They aren't.
- csallen 11y ago
  There are many, many, many businesses that do several millions or tens of millions in revenue and are happy doing that. The reason they're hard to name is because they aren't nearly as famous at the the billion dollar business. You're also still ignoring the point the article makes about the chances of success. Going for a billion dollar business often forces you to make decisions that sacrifice your ability to succeed with a smaller business. Even if the work and stress were the same, I'd take a 1-in-10 chance at $10M over a 1-in-10000 chance at $1B any day.
  - brudgers 11y ago
    The odds of a $10,000,000 business are also approximately zero, not 1:10 or even 1:1000. That's what the article ignores. The important choice is starting something or not. The bigger the business the more numerous the possible beneficial outcomes. A billion dollar business can 1.2% fail at $12,000,000.

by ebbv 11y ago

brudgers 11y ago

I didn't miss the point. I just happen not to agree with it 100%, by which I mean that building any sort of business that just survives tends to be incredibly hard work and high risk, and even then most don't build long term value or throw off six figure salaries year in and out. 37 Signals is still a unicorn, just not in the VC sense. That's why another 36 similar companies don't immediately leap to mind. The quantum step in risk is from wage worker to self-employee, and two year's toil with no net income for a little thing makes less sense than for a big thing. The article pretends that little things are sure things. They aren't.

csallen 11y ago
There are many, many, many businesses that do several millions or tens of millions in revenue and are happy doing that. The reason they're hard to name is because they aren't nearly as famous at the the billion dollar business. You're also still ignoring the point the article makes about the chances of success. Going for a billion dollar business often forces you to make decisions that sacrifice your ability to succeed with a smaller business. Even if the work and stress were the same, I'd take a 1-in-10 chance at $10M over a 1-in-10000 chance at $1B any day.
- brudgers 11y ago
  The odds of a $10,000,000 business are also approximately zero, not 1:10 or even 1:1000. That's what the article ignores. The important choice is starting something or not. The bigger the business the more numerous the possible beneficial outcomes. A billion dollar business can 1.2% fail at $12,000,000.