4 ms·
It probably holds true for startups. The longer the startup existed, the more has been built. Code, userbase... So one would expect it to last longer. I wonder
by no_gravity 9y ago
It probably holds true for startups. The longer the startup existed, the more has been built. Code, userbase... So one would expect it to last longer.
I wonder if it also holds true for profitable companies. That would mean that - all other things equal - a company 10 years old is worth as much as a company that is one year old but makes 10x the profits.
- erikpukinskis 9y agoI would expect a bimodal distribution here. The way most startups write code, the velocity per developer is decreasing as lines of code increases. You can throw more developers at it, up to a point, but eventually the codebase becomes worthless and all the value is in the development team's heads. There is kind of an escape velocity then... Some teams will be able to refactor or replace their way out of this, back to a point where more developer hours equals more features. Other companies will fail to achieve escape velocity, and the dev team will expand to use all available resources while the application becomes slowly worse relative to competitors. That process can be stretched out, and money made while the velocity nears zero, but the company will eventually die. Whether your codebase and development team is an asset or a liability depends on whether you have that escape velocity.
- greenyoda 9y ago"It probably holds true for startups. The longer the startup existed, the more has been built. Code, userbase... So one would expect it to last longer." That's only if what they're building is capable of eventually turning a profit. History is full of dead startups that had ample funding and lots of customers, and went on for many years, but could never figure out how to turn a profit. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homejoy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homejoy