Funded vs. Bootstrapped is a false dichotomy. Not every business model will succeed as a funded company and the opposite is true too.<p>While the author claims there is a charm to the "37 Signals" profitability approach vs. the "Twitter" growth approach. There's a reason those companies operate on completely different models and on completely different products.<p>In hindsight, would you have believed Apple could have existed without capital infusion? It is, arguably, a very profitable tech company.<p>I think there is a reason for both types of companies to exist. Generalizing the problem in to a pseudo duel between the two are the beginnings of a flawed decision.
Though I appreciate the analytical dissection of Funded vs Bootstrapped, this is obviously biased to already cash-heavy or serial startupers. The ones already "in the loop".<p>Most are not.<p>The most funding pitches are the ones who NEED the money to start working on MVP at all, let alone already have working business models to support themselves.<p>The "Funded vs Bootstrapped", in the meaning of the words implied in article, is a choice only for a select few.