There is a lot of truth in this essay but readers should know how to interpret it. When PG assumes stable revenue growth for "the last several months", even jus

There is a lot of truth in this essay but readers should know how to interpret it. When PG assumes stable revenue growth for "the last several months", even just revenue at all, for a startup that's been operating for not even a year, that already narrows down the set of startups for which his advice is applicable quite a bit. What we're essentially talking about then is a specific breed of startup (a popular breed, but still a specific breed): - Pure software / probably SaaS or a website. - Margin close to 100%. - Essentially no R&D component, i.e. just wiring together existing technologies. - Perfect product distribution infrastructure, i.e. internet or mobile app company. What readers should know however is that outside of this subset of startups there is a wide variety of flowers in the startup ecosystem that can all bloom in different ways and at different times. And that early growth isn't the only metric that makes a startup attractive. Growth a powerful one that eventually will be more important than everything else, but there are other things -- such as strong core IP or having early product in a small but growing market -- that make startups interesting. Then there's startups that require literally tens of millions of dollars of up-front investment and years of R&D before there even is a product. Are those all doomed? I guess not. Given the right execution and strategy and patient investors these companies can also be extraordinarily valuable. They are just a different kind though.