[bilbo0s]

>A self-funded slow-growth profitable startup can be a much more stable bet...

I think his point is that Microsoft, Amazon, and Google are even safer.

[Signez]

I may be mad, but I'm at a point where I would trust a self-funded slow-growth profitable startup waaaay more than Google to run a service in the long run.

Decades of "quickly started, even more quickly deprecated" services have taken their toll.

[marcinzm]

Sure Google can and does shut down products but they tend to give more than two weeks notice during the holidays.

[nine_k]

A company with a known working profit-making model is best, big or small.

GitHub used to be like that. They started very humbly, rejected most investments, grew slowly, but eventually owned most of the market.

[jwr]

I'm happy to hear that as a self-funded SaaS founder (https://partsbox.io/). This is exactly what I'm trying to tell my customers (some of which would rather see a large VC-funded operation): if you consider the probable exit paths for a VC-funded startup, very few are good for customers.

[bfritton]

Agreed