5 ms·
This talk by DHH explains why I prefer to bootstrap a company: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0CDXJ6bMkMY https://www.youtube.com/watch
by hbhakhra 12y ago
This talk by DHH explains why I prefer to bootstrap a company: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0CDXJ6bMkMY https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0CDX...
The main point being, that if you start off by selling a product (rather than getting people to sign up for a free product and then monetizing later) and can get a fraction of the people to sign up then you are in profit. Further, if you own 100% of the company, you are profitable much faster so you don't need to grow as large.
Ex: $30/month * 500 users = $15,000 a month. If that was a bootstrapped business with just a solo founder...$$$
- jacquesm 12y ago> Further, if you own 100% of the company, you are profitable much faster so you don't need to grow as large. Can you explain how 100% ownership translates into earlier profitability?
- rgbrenner 12y agoFewer founders means fewer people with expenses that the business needs to support (even if those expenses are the bare minimum: food, shelter, etc). Of course, I think what that assumes is that one person could launch a product as quickly as a team. It's easy to imagine a product being complex enough that a team could launch it before a solo founder would. But ignoring that.. it's clearly faster/easier to build a business to support a single person than multiple people.
- jacquesm 12y agoBut you could sell shares to non-founders. That way you have the same path to profitability but none of the extra costs.
- hbhakhra 12y agoI guess not earlier profitability but earlier "riches" because there is only one person taking from the pie. Of course the reason people add confounders/employees and take VC funding is because it makes the total pie easier to grow in many cases.