I'm not sure that Everpix is the case study some are making it out to be. Yes, there were obviously things the company could have done differently, but at the

I'm not sure that Everpix is the case study some are making it out to be. Yes, there were obviously things the company could have done differently, but at the end of the day, you still have a business that, according to the original Verge article, only generated ~$250,000 in subscription revenue against spend of more than $2 million. Forget headcount and payroll (both of which are arguably "modest" by Bay Area standards today): operating expenses alone exceeded revenue by $100,000. Everpix could have halved salaries and even if you mistakenly assume that the company could have attracted and retained employees talented and motivated enough to continue building a great product, it wouldn't have made a difference. If Everpix transitioned from a freemium to paid model, it wouldn't have made a difference either. Operating expenses would decrease, but user acquisition costs would almost certainly skyrocket (as nikcub points out above). Venture capital can help build great companies, and it can lead companies to pursue a high-risk growth strategy that ends in failure. But in this case, based on the numbers and story as told, it appears that we simply have a very good product that was never likely to be the foundation of a sustainable business, with or without venture capital.