2 ms·
This crazy notation / division only makes sense for simple SaaS or simple mobile apps, with a likely best case of a quick flip/aquihire. If you're building a t
by gumby 4y ago
This crazy notation / division only makes sense for simple SaaS or simple mobile apps, with a likely best case of a quick flip/aquihire. If you're building a tech business (cough "deep tech") like life science, hardware, etc there's really no revenue MVP and the stages look more like they did in the old days.
This sounds like a negative opinion (and I admit I am turned off by the default "all the world's a SaaS/app" assumption in most venture investing these days) but in truth I'm fascinated by the evolutionary pressure that has led to this.
I am disappointed that the bulk of the industry has embraced "singles and bunts" rather than trying for homers, and that the huge cash at the other end (megafunds) has largely gone for the "with enough thrust [cash] you can get anything airborne" approach. But if I'm unhappy with that it's my problem.
- version_five 4y agoI think the "advice" industry focuses on SaaS because it's easier to give simple advice. I don't know that actual investment balance weights this way. In some sense, it's actually harder to start a startup because you're in a more competitive space as a pure SaaS app, no matter what the product, vs real "deep tech".
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> the "advice" industry focuses on SaaS because it's easier to give simple advice It's also replicable. Enterprise SaaS entrepreneurship is virtually industrialized.