The article points out that there is room for many different models of building companies. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. It's true, the VC lure of dollars and fame is one that gets pushed by many; as such, this type of counterpoint is useful to see and hear, and likely required reading for those wishing to create something on their own. One should at least consider whether building the thing of your dreams on your own is possible.
I thought about this article a lot since it was published. I might be going off the tangent a bit here but it might be relevant here<p>I do think it is possible to make create a company with properties mentioned in dhh's article that have novel technical challenges. I used to think that only consumer startups can have it because only there you get users and traffic. ITA software and Akamai comes to mind. In fact, scaling a consumer product is fairly common knowledge (every app except Whatsapp and Facebook is sharding databases, adding a cache line to it and going through roughly the same steps).<p>If you can make a good product for businesses that requires solving a problem only made soluble with recent technology advances (for example, multicores, reduced latency gap of RAM and flash storage), then you never need to worry about monetisations strategies, VCs, exits and other things. Maybe you need but it will be like dessert after dinner rather than salt in Indian food.
Ambitious, VC backed business has grown a few amazingly successful businesses, while many more have hopelessly dashed on the rocks. Do consumers ultimately win from this kind of king-making and gamesmanship? Within the ecosystem of a company, we certainly receive lots of benefits:<p>* Services we don't pay money for - Github, Google Search, Facebook Messenger<p>* Services we receive a hefty discount on (for now) - Uber and Lyft rides<p>* Ambitious projects that require hefty upfront investment - SpaceX, Tesla (all of the above)<p>On the macro level, I'm not qualified to say whether we could end up getting these benefits from self-funded or lifetime profitable businesses in the same sphere. But I fundamentally agree that not every entrepreneur needs to take over the world. Making your "dent in the universe" by providing a sustainable, considerate and quality (paid) service is a meaningful achievement and worthy goal.
He has a point, but this is Hacker News. VCs most certainly do not want to invest in you if you just want to "make a dent". Everyone is searching for that next unicorn. If you don't want to be a unicorn, the VCs have no use for you.
Great article, I love the uncompromising tone.<p>> They’ve trained the media like obedient puppies to celebrate their process and worship their vocabulary. Oh, Series A! Cap tables! Vesting cliffs!<p>And woe betide the disobedient! Peter Thiel made Gawker an example of that.
I'll have a different perspective next time I watch Shark Tank.<p>This article only increased my disdain for Texas Pacific Group and Silver Lake Partners; who have fjnorked 2 different companies where I worked. I got RIFed on both occasions.
The only thing more upsetting than the omnipresent disruption talk, is DHH trying to take it down.<p>"I built Basecamp! It's moderately successful! So here's another 5,000 words essay on why everyone should do the same! In it, I say the exact same thing I have been saying for the last 10 years!"<p>Dude, we get it. You're not a unicorn because you chose not to. Great. Can we please move on.