4 ms·
This is the best argument for considering venture capital that I've read in a while, and it barely mentions venture capital.
by lawrence 17y ago
This is the best argument for considering venture capital that I've read in a while, and it barely mentions venture capital.
- tptacek 17y agoNot so fast. First, Spolsky probably doesn't need VC based on their revenue; they can staff up a sales team without going out for more money. Second, Spolsky got to spend ~10 years turning the dials to figure out what works for his product. He's in a good position. He has the option of increasing growth, and that option is more attractive right now than maintaining current growth. No VC funded company has a 10 year runway to figure out how to get their product right. Very few VC funded companies get 10 years, period: the investment needs to liquidate at some point. Finally, Fog Creek all but stumbled into their current product. They had a "VC-ready" product when they started (CityDesk). If they had gotten funded, they'd be dead now.
- SwellJoe 17y agoIf they had gotten funded, they'd be dead now. On what do you base this theory? I don't know that you're wrong...I just don't see how it naturally follows from anything we know about Fog Creek.
- tptacek 17y agoAllow for the fact that I am probably totally wrong about this. But, when I started reading JoS, Fog Creek was all about CityDesk. If they had gone for funding, they'd have done it to fund CityDesk. CityDesk didn't work out for them. That didn't matter, because there was no VC board to shutter the company or fire the management. And they hadn't run the VC-company playbook of hiring a 20-region direct sales force or running $1.5MM of ads to promote the product. So they weren't screwed. That's all I'm saying.
- SwellJoe 17y agoPossibly valid. Venture-backed companies do sometimes evolve successfully, but I can see how your theory could have played out that way, though.