Forum Posts Feed
Fetchnotes shuts down
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Andy Brice
Feb 7, 2016 at 02:32 PM
> It does make me wonder how many folks set out with this end goal in mind
Almost none. I know lots of people who started software product companies. They usually divide into:
‘startup’ - Take VC and try to grow really fast. Want to be the next Google/Facebook. Dream of making millions from an exit.
‘bootstrapper’ - Grow slowly from their own profits. Want to create a profitable business they can sustain long term.
Neither wants to be ‘acqui-hired’. Although that is generally still preferable to going bust.
Posted by Ken
Feb 8, 2016 at 01:36 AM
Andy Brice wrote:
> It does make me wonder how many folks set out with this end goal in
>mind
>
>Almost none. I know lots of people who started software product
>companies. They usually divide into:
>
>‘startup’ - Take VC and try to grow really fast. Want to be the next
>Google/Facebook. Dream of making millions from an exit.
>‘bootstrapper’ - Grow slowly from their own profits. Want to create a
>profitable business they can sustain long term.
>
>Neither wants to be ‘acqui-hired’. Although that is generally still
>preferable to going bust.
I am sure that a decent majority of folks have good intentions, and I know that this forum has seen and supported its share of bootstrappers and startups, but I still wonder about that dream of making millions from an exit, and truly wonder how different that is from an acqui-hire. I can sympathize with not wanting to go bust, but I suspect that any “exit” strategy will involve some end of life for the company’s product, so why not be honest, or at least not put up the pablum that has been so duly noted in the linked website. And if VC funds did not exist, I think that startups might have to rely on a different model of growth that might be a bit more customer-friendly, although acquiring talent and sitting on it (if only to deny your competition access to it) has been a time-honored tradition of the corporate world for many years. IIRC, IBM and Xerox among others were known to scoop up talent in years past.
—Ken
Posted by zoe
Feb 8, 2016 at 03:03 AM
There is definitely a contingent of people for whom acquisition by a larger company is the unspoken goal (or one acceptable goal out of several options). By 2016, after all the acqui-hires that have taken place, a startup founder would have to be incredibly naive to expect Google/FB/Twitter-like success.
Back in the first dot-com bubble, I remember companies were IPOing left and right, and the bubble amounted to something like a pump-and-dump scheme for the founders and early staff who got stock options. Nowadays, tech companies seem loath to go public. Those who have gone public are widely variable in their success. Once-unicornish companies like Groupon and Etsy are not doing so hot in the market. Yahoo! of course is getting worse every day and I can’t imagine how they will save the company now. LinkedIn just lost about half of its value in one day. Nobody seems to know what will become of Twitter. Facebook and Google are doing OK, but they are the exception. Who even knows if Evernote (which is not publicly traded) will remain in business, and they are arguably the dominant player in the online PIM space.
The landscape for the majority of internet-based companies doesn’t seem all THAT different to me from what it looked like on the eve of the first dot-com bubble bursting. In the first bubble, a few companies did manage to survive and become highly successful even as the majority of them imploded. But it’s pretty much winner-take-all. I just don’t think most smaller companies have a chance these days, even if they have a good product.
Posted by Ken
Feb 8, 2016 at 03:56 AM
zoe wrote:
There is definitely a contingent of people for whom acquisition by a
>larger company is the unspoken goal (or one acceptable goal out of
>several options). By 2016, after all the acqui-hires that have taken
>place, a startup founder would have to be incredibly naive to expect
>Google/FB/Twitter-like success.
>
>Back in the first dot-com bubble, I remember companies were IPOing left
>and right, and the bubble amounted to something like a pump-and-dump
>scheme for the founders and early staff who got stock options. Nowadays,
>tech companies seem loath to go public. Those who have gone public are
>widely variable in their success. Once-unicornish companies like Groupon
>and Etsy are not doing so hot in the market. Yahoo! of course is getting
>worse every day and I can’t imagine how they will save the company now.
>LinkedIn just lost about half of its value in one day. Nobody seems to
>know what will become of Twitter. Facebook and Google are doing OK, but
>they are the exception. Who even knows if Evernote (which is not
>publicly traded) will remain in business, and they are arguably the
>dominant player in the online PIM space.
>
>The landscape for the majority of internet-based companies doesn’t seem
>all THAT different to me from what it looked like on the eve of the
>first dot-com bubble bursting. In the first bubble, a few companies did
>manage to survive and become highly successful even as the majority of
>them imploded. But it’s pretty much winner-take-all. I just don’t think
>most smaller companies have a chance these days, even if they have a
>good product.
Living in the land of Amazon (I used to say Microsoft, but they have been surpassed in number of local employees in the past year or so), I find it a bit refreshing when there are market “corrections”. This is a region that often suffers from over-inflated egos and sense of self-importance, and always those suffering seem to think that this time it will be different, and the bubble will not burst. From a historical perspective, it is still early in the world of technology/internet services, so frequent bubbles and corrections do not seem that unusual to me. But, I do wonder when the VC money will find the pickings slim, and no longer throw their money at any and everything that looks like the next FOTM.
I do appreciate technological improvements, but much of what I have been seeing in the latest iterations from the hot service providers has been focused more on style and less on substance. I am still not sure how a new logo or using tropical colors rather than a more traditional color scheme will improve my productivity. And, I do wonder what the folks who designed the early GUI interfaces for companies like Apple and Microsoft think of all their hard work trying to standardize GUI’s from device to device and program to program must think of what is being offered up today. Perhaps I am just starting to show my age (and that old dogs do not always like new tricks), but I just do not seem to understand the priorities of product improvements in many products today? I’ll get off of my soap box on this issue as we have discussed this topic before, I suspect that we will keep seeing these announcement for some time to come.
—Ken
Posted by Andy Brice
Feb 8, 2016 at 08:47 AM
Ken wrote:
>And if VC funds did not exist, I
>think that startups might have to rely on a different model of growth
>that might be a bit more customer-friendly,
Indeed. However sustainable long-term businesses don’t need VCs and aren’t sexy enough for the media to care about. So all we hear about is VC-fuelled Google-or-bust businesses. Consequently a lot of founders now think that VC funding is the only option. And when you are VC funded, your real customers are your investors - the people using your product are just a means to an end.