[beat]

Isn't it? There's a history of con games (in both directions) in the VC world. It seems intuitive to me that it's easier for a "king" company to stay more focused on product and customers, and less on growth - sooner or later, if you're determined to grow at all costs, you'll have to decide to do something that hurts your customers, your team, your soul, in order to chase that growth.

I mean, this isn't proof or anything. But there seems to be some intuitive truth to DHH's position.

[nrao123]

What do you mean by history of con games?

I guess it's possible to build large businesses like Google, Facebook, Uber, Apple etc without taking VC money but its a choice that these founders made that taking VC money helps them increase the odds that they will achieve thier goals.

What's wrong with that?

On the other hand- you have perfectly good businesses like Craigslist, ESRI, SAS, Zoho who did it without raising VC money. Nothing wrong with that either.

Just different choices made by the founders of these companies.

[noblethrasher]

Microsoft is also a famous example of company that did not take VC money.

[uiri]

Microsoft's founders met at prep school - both were from well off families in the Pacific Northwest. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a little more family help available when starting their company than most.

Not that they aren't an example of a company that did not take VC money, just that they may not be a particularly good example for most looking to follow that path.