[1] I'm not referring to YC specifically, but investors and incubators who are comfortable with Uber-esq behavior.
The post you're responding to is about economics, though, and VC math doesn't work for funding modest successes.
A VC can fund 10 businesses and have 9 of them fail (high risk) as long as the remaining one provides 100x+ return (high reward).
If you don't fund that one blockbuster then you can't fund the failures.
If you want to be in low-risk and low-reward business, then you're a bank and you're providing loans, not giving out no-strings-attached cash.
We already have that. They're called banks.
Sure you can, you just bootstrap through monetising the ground work. For example, if you want a product company you can start out as a freelance design agency. The bulk of the initial design work will be for clients, but you can be involved with low volume manufacturing on the side. As the company grows, not only do you have the funds to take on progressively more ambitious product manufacturing projects, you've also built up a team of designers that can help push these projects forward. You're going to need designers right? Why not get them making you money from day one.
To give an alternative example, let's say you want to manufacture mobile phones. A good way to start small would be to manufacture accessories for existing phones. This is within the grasp of anyone within the Western world, given enough drive to do it. The revenue and knowledge you can gain doing so allows for increasingly sophisticated accessories to be built until the point where you have your own manufacturing premises (or have access to one at low rates, due to the volume of products you're pushing). The step from this point to manufacturing mobile phones is not that great.
Does this require more patience than burning through VC money? Sure, but it's also lower risk. Building a company gradually from the ground up means you get a better sense of what it takes to run a successful business (or in other words, experience is the best teacher).
Not only that, but the buyers of product and services are often different as well.
Sure, building up a huge services company lets you squirrel off some funds for product development, but how often do you see this in practice? The only example I can think of is IBM, and they're moving in the other direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adafruit_Industries#History
A similar example being this product company, which started out in 2012 with two people and a laser cutter, growing to a product company that employs 30+ people within the space of 5 years:
As for examples of design consultancies morphing into manufacturing companies, Cambridge Audio is one such example:
As a side note, thank you for founding Hackaday also, it's one of my favourite websites.
Except for every company that came before the current dot-com cycle.
Yes, if you have plenty of receivables, and they're diversified, you can find banks to fund some working capital. But not operating expenses.
I'm not referring to operating expenses. I'm referring to investment in growth. The idea is to prove you have a business that can turn a profit by bootstrapping it yourself, then get a small business loan from a bank to take it to the next level.
There are also other sources of business loans. Here's one example:
https://www.fundingcircle.com/uk/businesses/
Here's another:
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/small-business/3-potential-b...
The idea that VC money is needed to grow a certain type of business simply isn't true. If you're prepared to be patient, you can avoid any VC involvement.
What a bizarre statement. So highly educated people can't be passionate about food?
Also, what I suggested is not limited to expansion through a franchise model. Let's go back to product manufacturing to explore why. Imagine you have just received an initial order of 100,000 units of Product X. You can meet this order with your current supply chain, but in order to cut costs in future orders you'd like to manufacture a greater proportion of the finished product in-house. Let's say for the sake of argument that you've identified potential savings if you can create injection molded cases for Product X. If you go to the bank with a low-risk plan to grow the business, including an analysis of the current health of the company and forecasts of future profits, you can reasonably expect that you can find a bank (or other business loan lender) willing to lend you the money to invest in your company to help it grow.
What a bizarre deduction. I'm passionate about food, I have no interest in starting my own restaurant.
It was a generalization based on my own observations, most banks lend to safe well-established models, university graduates tend to gravitate towards newer things.
That's your choice of course, but why do you think that is?
> "university graduates tend to gravitate towards newer things."
I don't think that's an accurate generalisation. For people who have STEM degrees, I'd agree, but there are a large proportion of people who followed other degrees (English majors, History majors, Philosophy majors, etc...) where I'd suggest that bias towards the new is not as prominent.
My original point was that people were attempting ideas which were in the realm of potential global mega corps. If you don't grow to be one, you get eaten up!