This seems to me to be written exclusively from the business operator's perspective. And that's completely okay. And HN is probably an appropriate venue to po

This seems to me to be written exclusively from the business operator's perspective. And that's completely okay. And HN is probably an appropriate venue to post it. But if you flip it around and look at it from the customer perspective, it seems to be an argument for a transactional focus. The business is focused on deriving value from a small number of transactions before evaporating into the ether. Psychologists who study brands tell us that people who like brands like them (in part) because they guarantee a minimum level of quality. Sometimes that "quality" is the lack of expense. I'm thinking of Costco's "Kirkland" brand. For instance, I shop at Uwajimaya here in Seattle because I associate a minimum quality level with their seafood. I buy gas for my gas-burner at Chevron, Shell or Arco because I once got a tank of bad gas from Marathon. I wear Hoka running shoes because my shins stopped hurting after I bought them. It took years for these companies to establish their brands. A short-lived company is fine, but if you're competing in a space where there's a competitor with an established brand story, there may be a number of customers who favor a "least bad experience" over your "more great experience." (This assumes you can make something that is a "more great experience.") David Graber in Debt: The First 5000 Years, notes the correlation to the development of professional militaries with the rise of cash. The implication here is cash is useful for people who invade your turf and steal your things, but credit might be a better idea for someone with whom you want to have an extended community relationship. Or at least that's the theory. But what I see from this is "I don't want to bother with establishing a relationship with my customer." This is fine, of course. Even the carpet dealers I drink tea with in Istanbul know our relationship is fleeting. But if you're going to focus on transactions rather than relationships, I fear that puts you in the quadrant where you're competing on price. Why would anyone trust you if they know you won't be around next month? You can't say it's quality, because quality usually requires a guarantee. Mediocrity even requires a warranty. Neither of these are possible if your company vanishes into thin air every month. The only possible axis to compete would be price. Is that where you want to start out? Competing on price? Still... I think it's great someone's out there asking these questions and I would love to be proven wrong. Also, adding some data like "what is the average lifetime of a small business with $XXX of capitalization in market YYY?" might make the argument a bit more compelling. I know that data's out there somewhere.