A former community discussing the business of software, from the smallest shareware operation to Microsoft. A part of Joel on Software.
We're closed, folks!
Doug Nebeker ("Doug")
I've been around here, off and on for years. You kids, get off my lawn.
So Joel announces StackExchange just got $40M VC financing. That's great, good for all around. BUT - does anyone remember Joel's post, back when he actually wrote things for joelonsoftware, about how he would NEVER take VC funding ever? Anyone remember that post from many years ago? Remember all the carefully thought out reasons why taking VC money was poison?
I'm not just beating up on our benevolent host here - anyone remember the 37 Signals (Basecamp) crew back in their early days? They published a book online in PDF format as a paid download - "Getting Real", I still have my PDF copy. They published a few blog posts that went on and on how doing the self-published PDF paid download was the only thing that made business sense, publishing books on dead tree paper was awful and not worth the time for the money involved, publishers (like Joel's early take on VCs) were vampires that sucked everything out of you - anyone remember that? Of course, once they hit the Big Time, they published a new book - "Rework" - and it was in dead tree and Kindle format, via a traditional publisher only.
I just find this all interesting. Discuss.
I guess if I was him I'd note that those comments were about FogCreek, which presumably has no VC ownership and is still privately owned and note that StackExchange from the beginning was a partnership with others and never fell under that deal.
If FogCreek does have VC ownership though, then I'd say that things change.
I skimmed the article Ducknald Don linked to and I didn't see anything about *never* taking VC. Did I miss it? Or did he say that somewhere else? Perhaps the OP could link to it?
Monday, January 26, 2015
+1 to Scott.
Times and circumstamces change, so just because someone says something ten years ago about one business, doesn't mean they have to apply the same rigid rules to another very different company, with different partners and a different business model.
As an aside, anyone who follows the startup scene would likely think that an investment from a16z was not something to turn down, especially when you consider their wider protfolio of investments.
In Business you have to be prepared to change. Businesses that don't adapt die.
I'm not surprised that Joel is not using the same thinking as from 2003.
It would be different if Joel's post was about not using VC for ethical reasons and those ethical reasons that prevented taking VC were still valid.
"It would be different if Joel's post was about not using VC for ethical reasons and those ethical reasons that prevented taking VC were still valid. "
I went back and read Joel's post from 2003. And although he doesn't say he's against VC funding for "ethical" reasons, he lays out his reasons pretty clearly and they all seem perfectly applicable today,, nearly 12 years later.
This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.Other recent topics
Powered by FogBugz