p.p.s. I was exaggerating when I said "zero respect for your comment." I was just trying to make a point about the difference between criticizing someone's point and criticizing them personally. But now that I think about it, I was a little rude. I apologize.
I'm a big boy on the internet, I don't mind a flame at all, especially in response to a provocative post.
If you spend years, and millions of dollars, and don't make _any_ attempt to bring _any_ money in the door, I think you are making a mockery of the entire startup culture.
It's a business. What part of that do they not get?
Maybe maybe maybe, maybe they could try being a business and not seriously expect that some magical revenue stream is going to come knocking at their door with sacks full of cash.
Who funded these people? How can you seem to be so technically competent and marketing savvy, and not have a shred of business sense?
Are they going to go "focus on the next thing"?
Do they really deserve to be given funding for anything?
I think if you take someone else's money under the pretense of creating a business, you have some responsibility to the entire system to actually _try_ to create a business. And they haven't!
I wasn't flaming you.sifting through your follow-up, I find a few interesting items. First, indeed who did fund them? Have you asked the investors if they are unhappy? Ifnthe investors are unhappy, what went wrong with the governance? Why are we even assuming management is to blame? How do we know what happened? Maybe the finders wanted to generate cash flow but were nixed by the investors who wanted growth at the expense of revenues in the hope of being bought by Google?
Another thing. What is this responsibility you speak of? A funded startup exists to find an equilibrium between the needs of the investors and the needs of the founders. Nobody else gets a say in what happens. They have zero obligation to do what you want them to do if you aren't sitting on their board.
It sounds to me like you have strong opinions about what is and isn't the right way to do a startup. You might be right, but still there's something disquieting about taking a culture based on disruption and revolution and writing rules for what is and isn't the right way to revolt against the existing business structure.
Fair enough, maybe the investors told them not to generate cash flow. In which case, the investors are twits and deserve to lose their investment. My point is, whoever made that decision has been hitting the silicon valley kool-aid way too hard.
(Do you really think I'm saying they are responsible to my opinions? You seem like a smarter guy than that.)
I do have strong opinions about the right way to borrow money from other people:
When someone like Xmarks.com flops, it makes startups look bad to the 2 million users who are going to think twice about storing their data on someone's servers. It makes startups look bad to people who would like to make a return on their investment.
You can disrupt and revolt and rethink and metaprogram all you'd like, especially if you're sitting on VC funding. You can call cashflow an "existing business structure", but at some point, eventually, I think you need to charge something for something.
