3 ms·
As somebody who has gone through a startup that was pre-VC and post-VC, I assure you we didn't take investment to get written about or be cool. We took investm
by birken 14y ago
As somebody who has gone through a startup that was pre-VC and post-VC, I assure you we didn't take investment to get written about or be cool. We took investment because to grow your company beyond the first few people you need to pay people money. Sometimes certain ideas or opportunities you might want to invest in cost money. And that is what the VCs provide you, money. Sure, we could bootstrap and generate the money ourselves, but a) it requires short-term trade offs and b) its much slower. And slower is a problem because time is a really limited resource. Opportunity cost for all your employees, time for competitors to spring up and try to beat you, etc.
VCs are a tool. They allow people like me to have upside while at the same time make a salary. They allow me to instill confidence in potential candidates that our business is safe and if they take the job here, the company will still exist in 5 years. Look, Techcrunch is not an accurate picture of the valley, I'm not going to dispute that with you. But VCs are not evil people or a scam. They are a tool that for the right startup, at the right timing, can be hugely beneficial. It is pretty stupid that the best way to get written about is to raise funding, but then again getting written about is so inconsequential to success you can just ignore it. However having resources to grow and accelerate can be very consequential to success, and you need to make sure not to confuse the two.
- rayiner 14y agoI don't think his argument is that VC's are evil. I think he's just realizing that VC's run the show in Silicon Valley, in the same way those who hold the capital run the show in every industry. VC's decide what the industry looks like, because VC-funded startups have a major competitive advantage over bootstraped ones. This is true in nearly every industry, by the way. F500 CEO's spend enormous amounts of time obsessing over Wall Street analyst reports. There is a reason it takes a CEO like Jobs and a company like Apple to ignore them. This isn't good or bad, it is just the nature of the world.
- michaelochurch 14y agoI actually think Jobs's main accomplishment was to prevent Apple from developing an Effort Thermocline (the line at which jobs get easier, rather than harder, with increasing rank). What I've heard about him is that he was actually a very nice guy to low-level employees, but brutal with executives (the opposite of the normal company where shit rolls downhill). VC-istan has managed to put the Effort Thermocline between companies, which is rather ingenious. Crossing the Thermocline also involves a total change of job description (from "entrepreneur", by which I mean glorified Product Manager who serves as middle-management within the VC-istan ecosystem, to investor/executive).
- michaelochurch 14y agoIt is pretty stupid that the best way to get written about is to raise funding, but then again getting written about is so inconsequential to success you can just ignore it. Disagree. VC-istan is built on disposable companies, celebrity effects, and social climbing. Getting "Techcrunched" does a lot for your career as an individual (you've arrived, and no matter what happens you're a Real Person in VC-istan, and you're two-and-a-half handshakes away from joining Those Who Have Completed An Exit even if your idea sucks) even though you're right that it's completely irrelevant to the success of the company itself. VC-istan fails to solve the actual problem, which is that almost none of the work the 21st-century needs can be forced into existence via subordination or traditional do-as-I-say management, leaving 90+ percent of corporations uninspiring and obsolete. VC-istan theoretically liberates a few people from subordinacy by generating new MegaCorps, but no one seems interested in solving the underlying problem for the many.