2 ms·
> Sure - and there's nothing wrong with that. Yes there is: you are forcing a false dichotomy on the business world. "Businesses that 'scale'[1]" vs. "busines
by vonmoltke 10y ago
> Sure - and there's nothing wrong with that.
Yes there is: you are forcing a false dichotomy on the business world. "Businesses that 'scale'[1]" vs. "businesses that don't" is not a very useful classification, no matter what you call them.
[1] Whatever that means; this has become one of those terms that means whatever the reader/author wants it ti mean.
- marcosdumay 10y agoWhat? Some business scale, some don't. Consulting services are around the extreme of "non-scaling" business (the most extreme being specialized consulting), while licensing software is at the "scaling" extreme. There are lots and lots of thing in between.
- vonmoltke 10y ago> There are lots and lots of thing in between. That's my point. "Scaling" is, well, a scale. It isn't a binary (scale || !scale).
- agibsonccc 10y agohttp://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html Anyways - FWIW I'm definitely biased. I'm a cofounder of a venture backed YC startup. Scale here typically means: software you can infinitely copy vs people who get tired. Personnel cost more than software. Does that make sense?
- vonmoltke 10y agoI agree startup == growth. I don't agree that making generalizations about !startup is useful. > Personnel cost more than software. Does that make sense? Yeah, but that's orthogonal. Needing more people makes scaling harder and more expensive, but doesn't fundamentally change the nature of the business or its goals.
- agibsonccc 10y agoThe "goals" include "how" to make money though. It's defined right in the business model. Every businesses' goal is "technically" to "make money" to "survive". To what degree and how are the business model and the focus of my points here. Eg: open core vs consulting.