[nlh]

I agree with most of what the post says -- entrepreneurs today rarely have a "clean" linear history, and that's actually pretty cool.

I disagree with one point:

At Bloomberg Beta, we have backed founders who we know have jobs other than the startup we are investing in — and that’s fine. So long as we share an understanding of how much time they are devoting, and have transparency into all their other roles so we know there are no conflicts, we think having multiple interests is healthy.

Yes, multiple interests is indeed healthy. But I really don't think founding a company should be a part-time endeavor. Maybe a side project is, and if you're backing a side-project as just that, fine. But starting a _company_ -- a real business -- takes an absurd amount of focus and attention and shouldn't be a side dish. I sense there's a reason YC doesn't like to back founders who haven't fully committed themselves to the venture.

Or...?

Edit: To clarify, I'm referring not to running a personal side project or hobby business. Many folks can and should do that sort of thing in their spare time. I'm talking about founding a company - and taking investment - and building a team. That's where real focus and sole dedication is needed.

[simonw]

Starting a rapid growth, venture-backed startup (which is the route YC tends to lead towards) may be incompatible with other jobs, but there are plenty of forms of startup or entrepreneurship that are. As the article mentioned, GitHub was started in the founders' spare time while they were employed elsewhere. Plenty of startups bootstrap themselves through consulting - it slows you down, but it also reduces risk which may be appropriate for some people (people with families to support for example). 37signals were a web consultancy when they launched Basecamp.

[nlh]

Very good points - thanks!

This helps me clarify my thinking a bit: I think the 37signals approach is actually a good one. The key there is that the team stays together, works together, and evolves together - even if the actual project of the day isn't directly related to the company's "core."

I guess what I'm concerned about are the situations where the founders' attentions are split. "Sorry guys, I can't make this big pitch meeting because my other job needs me" or "Yeah I'd love to be there for the big push before our demo, but I have to get up early tomorrow for a meeting at my other job", etc. That's the stuff that's potentially very difficult.

[prostoalex]

Starting a product != launching a startup.

37 Signals guys didn't need to build a brand new company while they were building a brand new product. GitHub delayed organizational build-up for as long as possible. Scaling an org is a pretty daunting task http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2013/08/the-similarities-between-bui...

[hack_edu]

That quote, and entire post, is really just a clumsy (read: "classy") way of plugging his newest venture. There's no real assertion to disagree with, just a filler sentence written for PR.

cute title + 500 words = free marketing press release disguised as a blog post