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".
Most are not.
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.
The "Funded vs Bootstrapped", in the meaning of the words implied in article, is a choice only for a select few.
Funded vs. Bootstrapped is a false dichotomy. Not every business model will succeed as a funded company and the opposite is true too.
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.
In hindsight, would you have believed Apple could have existed without capital infusion? It is, arguably, a very profitable tech company.
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.
5 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 20.6 ms ] threadMost are not.
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.
The "Funded vs Bootstrapped", in the meaning of the words implied in article, is a choice only for a select few.
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.
In hindsight, would you have believed Apple could have existed without capital infusion? It is, arguably, a very profitable tech company.
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.