4 ms·
Right. I don't see how this does not apply to, e.g., an engineer or graphic designer who could create a product but not sell it, or sell it but not create it. T
by byrneseyeview 19y ago
Right. I don't see how this does not apply to, e.g., an engineer or graphic designer who could create a product but not sell it, or sell it but not create it. These people can't survive except as part of a big company -- and they get that way by either getting hired, or starting a built-to-flip startup and selling out. It seems like a false dichotomy, since these are two ways for the same people to do the same thing.
- tptacek 19y agoI'm sorry, I just don't follow you. In any major city there are scores of independent solo graphic design and engineering firms. There are also scores of indie firms who design, manufacture, and distribute products. Built-to-flip startups are a special class of company who avoid most of the work of distribution, promotion, sales, and billing in favor of maximizing the investment value of their product. Again: if they thread the needle and sell that package to Cisco, they win. If they miss, they die.
- byrneseyeview 19y agoSo your counterargument is that 1) there are firms that exist as part of the supply chain -- firms that, if they could not flip their services to bigger companies -- would not exist, and that 2) there are smaller companies consisting of employees with built-to-flip careers. I don't understand why you draw this arbitrary distinction between paying someone a fraction of your future cash flows (through stock) versus paying them a stream of cash.