

Start-up as commodity, start-up as nine-to-five - drm237
http://virtualeconomics.typepad.com/virtualeconomics/2007/10/start-up-as-com.html
For my money, the lower barrier to entry won't create a problem for VCs because fewer and fewer of these start-ups are going to need the VC stage.
======
Harj
"It just doesn't cost VC-scale capital for one guy (plus perhaps a handful of
mechanical turks) to create a website that makes enough money for that one guy
to live on."

vc's don't care about companies on that scale - it doesn't fit the vc model of
needing one massive hit to cover the losses across the portfolio so they don't
lose anything by missing out on that kind of deal.

launching a web app doesn't need vc money but building one of those massive
hits does. since those companies (yahoo/google/facebook/etc) have the biggest
economic impact, there'll always be a need for VC's, even if the standard
terms of deals changes.

~~~
cglee
I personally think the reason a 'massive hit' needs a lot of money (and
therefore VC) is for the hardware/bandwidth/infrastructure costs. Those costs
have not come down per the proportions that software costs have.

However, services such as AWS should help for all apps right below the
'massive" threshold, which is the vast majority of apps.

------
palish
Unfortunately, most companies (Amazon and Facebook, for example) need
investors. The differences between what you can do with investment and what
you'd have to do without investment are pretty huge, and it seems like you
might not win at all without the capital that your competitors enjoy.

Have any YC companies gotten by without investment?

~~~
DougBTX
Startups become YC companies to get investment. If they weren't looking for
investment, they'd have no need to talk to VCs, micro or not.

