I repeat: The valley dysfunction in action.
Very simply, a healthy business creates value. It figures out how to do something people will pay more than cost for.
My hypothetical startup won't have the resources of a Google, but could be made much better if it did. Why is it unreasonable then to target acquisition as a way of ending my responsibility for nurturing the business and handing it off to another party?
If the business is healthy and you simply want more resources to scale, it absolutely makes sense to entertain an acquisition.
But if you start up knowing full well that the only path to success is through acquisition (that is the idea, on its own, cannot be used to build a sustainable, going concern), then you're simply gambling and contributing to the speculative bubble that is the Valley.
And you're also a heck of a lot more likely to fail.
But if you start up knowing full well that the only path to success is
through acquisition (that is the idea, on its own, cannot be used to build a
sustainable, going concern), then you're simply gambling and contributing to
the speculative bubble that is the Valley.
I disagree. Startups, these days, is how corporate R&D is performed. Yeah, it's easy to look at the most prominent startups and say that it's all froth. But there are a surprising number of hardware and software startups that are trying to tackle problems in hardware and biology. Very few of these startups have an exit strategy that involves becoming a public company. It's all about developing a viable product (not necessarily a viable business), and then shopping the company out to potential acquirers.It's far more sensible to worry about your idea being cloned by a teenager in her bedroom who could give the same product away for free a week after you launch. That's the real threat for most startups.
Exit strategies are like any other tool: Used well, they discipline the founder's thoughts and help maintain focus in the team. Used badly, they're likely to set the worst example for the team, for other founders and for people outside the Silicon Valley.
My example doesn't add much more value than conveniences. That's good, but it probably isn't a sustainable business.
If I were really considering my example as a viable startup idea, my comments about Google (in the post) would push me to dig deeper and look for more value than the just the cross product search feature.