6 ms·
Better? It is just much easier for them to get funding. More funding -> More successes. Source: I know a ton of people who went to Stanford and who had zero tr
by corporateslave2 9y ago
Better? It is just much easier for them to get funding. More funding -> More successes.
Source: I know a ton of people who went to Stanford and who had zero trouble getting near unlimited funding.
Also the purpose of this article is to appeal to the Indian reader base that is qz.com. They are writing articles to appease their demographics.
- cylinder 9y agoAmazes me that a low/no capital business model (software) combined with the hacker ethos was so readily and quickly hijacked by The Money People. You don't need this much money and a true entrepreneur dies inside everytime they give away a piece of their company.
- corporateslave2 9y agoI think most solutions are capital intensive. The general business model is: Build software that provides a service that loses a little bit of money on every transaction. Use VC capital to fund this. Continue the model until volume is very high or some critical velocity is reached, creating a barrier to entry. Slightly pivot the business model to profitability. Profitable monopoly created.
- bsder 9y ago> You don't need this much money and a true entrepreneur dies inside everytime they give away a piece of their company. Often, you do need that much money. Elon Musk went begging among his rich friends because he was less than 30 days from not making payroll. Mere mortals would have to shut down. This is what makes unicorns.
- helloindia 9y agoFrom what I see from QZ fb feed, they also post articles that portrays India in a negative light. Definitely their focus is their India, but assumption that they want to appease the Indian demographic may not be enitirely true.
- corporateslave2 9y agoRegardless, their articles are targeted at India...