I'm not sure that Everpix is the case study some are making it out to be.<p>Yes, there were obviously things the company could have done differently, but at the end of the day, you still have a business that, according to the original Verge article, only generated ~$250,000 in subscription revenue against spend of more than $2 million.<p>Forget headcount and payroll (both of which are arguably "modest" by Bay Area standards today): operating expenses alone exceeded revenue by $100,000. Everpix could have halved salaries and even if you mistakenly assume that the company could have attracted and retained employees talented and motivated enough to continue building a great product, it wouldn't have made a difference.<p>If Everpix transitioned from a freemium to paid model, it wouldn't have made a difference either. Operating expenses would decrease, but user acquisition costs would almost certainly skyrocket (as nikcub points out above).<p>Venture capital can help build great companies, and it can lead companies to pursue a high-risk growth strategy that ends in failure. But in this case, based on the numbers and story as told, it appears that we simply have a very good product that was <i>never</i> likely to be the foundation of a sustainable business, with or without venture capital.