3 ms·
As a SaaS author: I would also suggest taking into account the business model of the SaaS you are looking at. The old way of thinking was that a Serious Compan
by jwr 8y ago
As a SaaS author: I would also suggest taking into account the business model of the SaaS you are looking at.
The old way of thinking was that a Serious Company is safer than a one- or two-founder operation. But Serious VC-funded Companies are unprofitable most of the time and burn through VC money, subsidizing their business. Even if they don't crash, a "successful outcome" is an acquisition, which most of the time results in shutting down the product and a post about what a "wonderful journey" this was. And don't forget all the products that Google just shut down over the years.
A self-funded slow-growth profitable startup can be a much more stable bet, even though it seems counter-intuitive.
- bilbo0s 8y ago>A self-funded slow-growth profitable startup can be a much more stable bet... I think his point is that Microsoft, Amazon, and Google are even safer.
- Signez 8y agoI may be mad, but I'm at a point where I would trust a self-funded slow-growth profitable startup waaaay more than Google to run a service in the long run. Decades of "quickly started, even more quickly deprecated" services have taken their toll.
- marcinzm 8y agoSure Google can and does shut down products but they tend to give more than two weeks notice during the holidays.
- bfritton 8y agoAgreed
- nine_k 8y agoA company with a known working profit-making model is best, big or small. GitHub used to be like that. They started very humbly, rejected most investments, grew slowly, but eventually owned most of the market.
- jwr 8y agoI'm happy to hear that as a self-funded SaaS founder (https://partsbox.io/ https://partsbox.io/). This is exactly what I'm trying to tell my customers (some of which would rather see a large VC-funded operation): if you consider the probable exit paths for a VC-funded startup, very few are good for customers.
- IMTDb 8y ago> A self-funded slow-growth profitable startup can be a much more stable bet, even though it seems counter-intuitive. It's not counter intuitive, it's just that it's really hard to guess which company is doing OK, getting slow steady and profitable growth and which does not. Additionally, the slow and steady company can still be acquired / decide to "bet big" / ... . So we are back to Google and co.