Seems like people like this live in a different world. I'm just grinding everyday at my 9-5... then I go to a coworking space for my "5-9" to code my startup. Reading stuff like this makes it seem like everyone else just puts FizzBuzz in an iPhone app and gets $100k funding.
It seems to me, 4-6 years ago there was a healthy dynamic between funded startups and bootstrapped businesses. Now, I rarely hear anything about bootstrapping, as if getting funding won the day, and now bootstrapping is laughed at.
You can't begrudge every business that raises $100k. That's an insanely paltry amount, and anyone giving that money away both a) expects the founders to live on ramen and Red Bull and b) makes 99 similar bets in hopes that just one of them won't fail.
People should start believing in sustainable businesses again, not that their "Tinder for dogs" iOS app will become a billion dollar business. Because - and here's the truth - they almost definitely can't.
Do your 5-9 because you one day want it to be your 9-5. Build a 9-5 you want to work at for years. Build a business, not a startup.
Building > begging. Trust me, it's a wonderful feeling.
I've been an entrepreneur since I was a teen in the early Oughts before this latest "startup fad" began.
It's disheartening, really, to see all these nonsense startups run by people with little to no business acumen raising millions, just because they look and talk the part or have the right connections. Go and browse AngelList, there is some real garbage on there with $5M+ in funding.
This funding is creating distortions in the market and allowing shitty companies to stay alive and crowd the marketplace because they've got a war chest.
True business-people absolutely hate to give away even a small piece of their business unless they have to. Real business-people want to make money (profit) rapidly! These cashed up startups seem to have no interest in that. It's just about the next round of millions so they can brag about their "valuation." Everyone needs to struggle when they build their first businesses, not pay themselves six-figure salaries at 25 yrs old with their investor dollars until the cash runs out.
These are software companies we're talking about, they have very little capital requirements to enter the market. These are not airlines or skyscraper builders.
(Of course there are a lot of brilliant innovative startups active right now and they need money for some runway. At this point they are in the minority. There's a lot of rif-raff out there)
There have certainly been times where I could absolutely see how a cash infusion could help us grow more rapidly, hop on certain market trends faster, and so on. But the cost of that capital is high.
Who knows. We could always end up going out of business and kicking ourselves for not going an alternate route.
That's owning a business. 10% utter joy, 90% sheer terror. :)
I too do not understand some of these things that raise millions on nothing. Don't get it at all. The only thing I can figure is that they have some connections, or there is something funny going on.
With only a slide deck you have unlimited potential, while business reality is usually very different. :)
Hate to put it that bluntly, but I can't imagine anyone who really thinks much about investing falling for this bias.
This is a filter-bubble sort of problem. If you get your news from TechCrunch/etc, yes, that makes a lot of sense; TechCrunch long-ago decided that bootstrapped businesses do not maximize page views. If you hang out in the bootstrapping world, it is a very exciting time to be alive.
Most start-ups simply no longer need large amounts of capital to get rolling. This gap will become even more dramatic in the next five years - I'm looking forward to it.
Growing a thousand-fold takes 20 years at 40% a year.
I know of a startup/bootstrapped company whose product is incredibly simple code-wise (simply a web frontend connected to a wifi-enabled ticketing machine which is the interesting part), not "FizzBuzz" but less than two weeks' code, and they're solving real needs for their customers.
Should they be less worthy of seed funding than your (presumably complex) solution? Ok, so their barrier of entry is way lower, but I'd probably fund it (If I had any money that is :) ).
Sometimes I get the impression that simply getting funding is the goal and symbol that you've "made it"; a viable business is secondary.