[batgaijin]

Uh... the next big ideas aren't going to be the first thing out the door. If they are smart they would create something for passive income with low maintainability while working on the real product.

There is a meme where running a startup is like gambling where the only option is going all in, both for participating in the startup and for the ideas they execute. Quit huffing the glue, and pass the glue.

[w1ntermute]

Uh...you clearly have never worked at a startup with a severe need for more developers. And I'm not talking about the next Instagram. There are legitimate needs for more developers in many startups that are working on real problems.

If you can accelerate the growth of your business by taking VC money and hiring more people, why wouldn't you? Contrary to your first statement, there are plenty of startups in markets that are currently in "landgrab" mode.

[rhizome]

If you can accelerate the growth of your business by taking VC money and hiring more people, why wouldn't you?

Brooks' Law, for one thing. I if I was in the situation you describe, I would try more to use the money to buy time, not so much people.

[w1ntermute]

That makes no sense. By definition, if you can accelerate the growth of your business by hiring more people, then it is a case in which Brook's Law doesn't apply. It is a common misconception that Brook's Law applies to all software projects. It does not. I can think of several real situations where it does not.

[rhizome]

"Growth of your business" is a particularly nebulous term in this (your?) equation, can you clarify how it applies in this context?

Is it possible you're identifying a follow-on effect where funding would allow a company to buy both headcount and time with which to get the new people up to speed? Making a late project later is only an observation, and speaks nothing to how hard or soft (invented) deadlines might be within a particular company.