Except for dozens of counter examples that make up for literally multiple trillions of dollars in market capitalization.
The point is that from the perspective of investors, the survival of an individual startup is an irrelevant metric. What they're interested in is the profitability of the whole portfolio.
And so far, a 90% failure rate with <5% wild success is a profitable formula. As long as that remains true, they have no reason to change it.
The big profitable tech companies today didn’t raise billions in VC money.
Whether the numbers crept into the billions when the company was private or public is irrelevant. The point is that for a company to reach scale, they need billions in funding from somewhere.
Somebody has to take the risk, and all investors want returns for that risk. Public market growth investors want rapidly growing companies just as VC investors do.
The early companies like Apple and Microsoft were started with a few million not even a billion in today’s dollars. As I said earlier, Microsoft didn’t even need the later rounds of funding and wanted to bring expertise on board.
The only one of the current top tech companies that weren’t GAAP profitable at IPO is Amazon and even it used its own operating cash to fund growth.
> do you want to grow slowly and steadily over a 20+ year period only to find that the economics don't work, or do you want to fail fast with some extra waste in the middle
Seems highly dubious because you can take a perfectly fine business model and create an unattainable, doomed-to-fail situation out of it by subjecting it to unrealistic expectations, as we have seen in dozens of examples from the current bubble. Stress testing is not useful if it sets artificial pressures that destroys the business.
1. There are plenty of companies on the path to IPO that didn't take 1B+ in VC money 2. The "sharing" platforms are expensive investments because there are so many players fighting for market share.
We're talking about a strategy of fast growth vs slow and steady. All the companies we've mentioned so far invested in fast growth early on, whether from VC or reinvestment.
Amazon is the outlier when it comes to the lack of GAAP profitability for years, but even it was cash flow positive.
Every year, VC in the US _as a whole_ invests roughly 100B [2]. If you cut out non-growth and non-tech sectors I'd guess that number total goes to around 40B, and roughly 100B (very rough number) globally.
So yeah, some money gets "wasted" but it creates huge market capitalizations that are around two full orders of magnitude larger than a single years investment, and growing strong year over year.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/faang-stocks.asp [2] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-venture-capital-...
Amazon - operates on thin to non existent profits for years but use much of its own money to grow through operating cash.
Apple - definitely didn’t raise billions in the 70s and was profitable at IPO.
Netflix - I don’t know much about Netflix.
Google - grew fast but it also had a profitable business.
Microsoft - famously, MS didn’t even need the VC money it got early on. It took the money because it wanted the expertise of the investors.
Besides discovery and virality, there is also the issue of falling transaction costs. When Google, Facebook and Amazon were founded, you had to maintain your own datacenters and infrastructure. That alone produced a massive barrier to entry that made competition less fierce. Since the advent of AWS and other cloud computing platforms, transactions costs for tech companies have dropped dramatically so you can't rely on infrastructure prowess as a competitive advantage for many tech verticals.
You simply can't compare companies that were born and matured in different markets with different dynamics to those founded in the past 10-15 years. It's apples and oranges.
Were Linkedin, Instagram, Beats by Dre, WhatsApp, Tableau, Skype, GitHub, MuleSoft all failures because they were acquired for billions, making lucrative paydays for their founders and investors?
Beats by Dre raised less than $1 billion in funding.
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/beats-by-dr-dre
WhatsApp raised less than $70 million.
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/whatsapp#section-ove...
From looking at Crunchbase, Instagram didn’t raise any outside funding.
None of the companies you listed raised anywhere near what Uber, Lyft and AirBnb raised.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/12/strategy-letter-i-...