Paul, if you don't know of anyone saying this kind of thing today, doesn't that mean we need it more than ever?
I think it's safe to assume that even though YC is dedicated to empowering entrepreneurs, in reality it's only internet entrepreneurs that get most (if not all) of the attention.
Many web startups are like "throw-away injection" devices, built for the sole purpose of commercialising and popularising that particular technology. If it is an excellent product, that contributes by adding value, and therefore imparts meaning to the user, than by all means it is OK to build such a thing to flip it.
But what about the OTHER entrepreneurs, startup guys/girls that don't just want to start web startups, but any kind of company? Web startups are such a small minority of of the entrepreneurial category. Whether 2000 or not, shouldn't this message seem relevant even today? Is there nothing sacred, nothing timeless, nothing that can transcend ourselves?
There are people that have this mindset, although I don't think it means that we are in a bubble. There are always people looking to get rich quick. The fact that it's so easy to start a Web Venture today means that there will be more of those kind of people in this space.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/10/01/8387088/
Investors are certainly looking for companies that can go public or get acquired. Arguably only those, in fact. What's changed is that no one now would expect that in 12-18 months. That was just Bubble craziness.
If that wasn't your goal, if you just wanted to start a business because you wanted to run your own business, should you look for other types of funding? Are you basically out of luck with most professional investors?
Yes, few professional investors would be interested. No matter what they claim about wanting to build long-lasting companies, the structure of VC funds requires them to have exits.
Interestingly, though, you'd also be out of luck with a lot of potential employees. The more ambitious ones want options that might make them rich. Without any prospect of an exit, you lose all the hotshots to competitors who offer such a prospect. That's why big, private tech companies are so rare.
'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.
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.
A world with 100 new HPs every year? That would mean excellent and enlightened corporate leadership that provides meaning, freedom and security for those that associate and work for the company. A situation where the corporatocracy contributes to the well-being of society and the environment, and takes responsobility for it's wrong-doings.
I agree that Built to Last not all companies, for sure. Collins outlined that in his article. But a world with 100 new HPs every year? It will never happen. It would be too good to be true. You don't get much enlightened leadership anymore. It is a rare thing, unfortunately.
The article's purpose was not to say that Built to Flip is wrong, or that Built to Last was right. It was to educate us to build something that works, but also to inspire us to build something greater than ourselves.
I agree with that. There is nothing wrong with selling your company, but if you start your company hoping to sell it for millions in a year, it seems like you're just setting yourself up for trouble.
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.
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)?
