"Come back with an idea that you can do quickly and that you can take public or get acquired within 12 to 18 months."

This is from 2000, Feb 2000 no less. I don't know of anyone saying this kind of thing today.

'Build to flip' is a fine idea. Of course you still need to make a good product, but I don't think 'build to last' is right for every company or every idea. A world with 100 new HPs every year would be top-heavy.<p>The ecosystem needs a few big companies with billions of capital and global reach, but there's nothing wrong with building up a good small idea and selling it off after a year or two to be integrated into something larger.

It seems like if you are building to flip you might get lucky, and at certain times (like 7 years ago) that's easier than others. But "build to last"/"build to work" are on the same side of the coin as "make something people want": the odds of succeeding and making money are better if you are aiming to build something great that's actually worth acquiring.

I read the first half of the article thinking that this was written today instead of 7 years ago, it sounds very familiar

The attitude to have a an exit strategy is pervasive here. It could be because it's been advocated in Paul's many essays. But ask yourselves, do you just want to start a web startup? Is it just about the web, or would you start any kind of startup/company (tech or not)?