4 ms·

Some of the best startups I worked for were self funded and avoided VC money. The growth was slower, but the products we put out tended to be better vetted, bet

Some of the best startups I worked for were self funded and avoided VC money. The growth was slower, but the products we put out tended to be better vetted, better coded and far more stable. Both places were a joy to work at since you were mainly concerned with the quality of the product you were producing instead of how fast you could get it to market.

omouse 10y ago
It's because you can only fool your customers/clients for so long before they realize your product is garbage. If you have poor quality you need to have a lot of support staff to deal with the calls/emails or you need to have deep pockets to offer discounts and refunds repeatedly. It's so fucked to read about VC-funded startups and read Paul Graham's earlier essays because he pretty much summed up a startup as "move as fast as possible to build a product that your customers want" and emphasized quality. Somewhere along the line, getting VC funds somehow has dwarfed that goal.
- tim333 10y ago
  He was of course not a huge fan of VCs >Back in 1997, one of our competitors raised $20 million in a single round of VC funding. This was at the time more than the valuation of our entire company. Was I worried? Not at all: I was delighted. It was like watching a car you're chasing turn down a street that you know has no outlet... etc (http://www.paulgraham.com/venturecapital.html http://www.paulgraham.com/venturecapital.html)
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    and yet YC is the center of the universe for SV VC-funded tech startups.
    - at-fates-hands 10y ago
      What do you think changed? Did PG change his view on things, or did the industry change? A LOT can happen over 15+ years, and considering how fast SV and the tech industry moves, that's almost an eternity.
      - beaconstudios 10y ago
        I couldn't say for sure. The cynic in me wants to point to the amount of money in software VC, but I think PG is more principled than that. Perhaps it's related to the fact that YC provides a lot more in terms of advice and guidance than cash, and then passes startups on to seed/series-A investors.

omouse 10y ago

It's because you can only fool your customers/clients for so long before they realize your product is garbage. If you have poor quality you need to have a lot of support staff to deal with the calls/emails or you need to have deep pockets to offer discounts and refunds repeatedly. It's so fucked to read about VC-funded startups and read Paul Graham's earlier essays because he pretty much summed up a startup as "move as fast as possible to build a product that your customers want" and emphasized quality. Somewhere along the line, getting VC funds somehow has dwarfed that goal.

tim333 10y ago
He was of course not a huge fan of VCs >Back in 1997, one of our competitors raised $20 million in a single round of VC funding. This was at the time more than the valuation of our entire company. Was I worried? Not at all: I was delighted. It was like watching a car you're chasing turn down a street that you know has no outlet... etc (http://www.paulgraham.com/venturecapital.html http://www.paulgraham.com/venturecapital.html)
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  and yet YC is the center of the universe for SV VC-funded tech startups.
  - at-fates-hands 10y ago
    What do you think changed? Did PG change his view on things, or did the industry change? A LOT can happen over 15+ years, and considering how fast SV and the tech industry moves, that's almost an eternity.
    - beaconstudios 10y ago
      I couldn't say for sure. The cynic in me wants to point to the amount of money in software VC, but I think PG is more principled than that. Perhaps it's related to the fact that YC provides a lot more in terms of advice and guidance than cash, and then passes startups on to seed/series-A investors.