One thing about the post that seems a little odd is that it talks about an alternate view of wealth creation - some company that presumably could never IPO though is still valuable - yet ends on a note which yields to the assumption that a company is not a success unless it becomes an Apple or HP type behemoth.
I was just making the point that the possibility of creating a huge "home run" which is the desired VC outcome (eg like an Apple or HP) is difficult when VCs "pass" on what looks like a few guys making an iphone app or something.
My other point is that many entrepreneurs need more than 25k to build their prototype yet fail to do it do to the clutter in the funding market hence two guys building in a garage for a customer project might not get funded in today's climate.
To me if an entrepreneur can create a product get it to market and get profitable they are a success and possibly could be a big "home run". If the investment thesis is to get the home run then it most likely will overlook two guys in a garage.
