Apple also isn't looking to get bought out by Google for $60M. They're in it for the long haul, and they're looking to be big players. Most of the small startups I see these days, unfortunately including YC startups, seem to be launching with the idea of doing one cool thing, having no idea how to make money in so doing, and hoping to get bought out in a talent acquisition by Google or Facebook before they run out of money. In many cases, it seems to be less about entrepreneurship and more about putting together a really cool portfolio so you'll get a massive signing bonus when you get hired. Now, that's certainly a legitimate way to make money, and it makes sense for the angels and founders participating in YC and the like. But it's not entrepreneurship.
How many of the angel-backed startups these days are really looking to be long-term players? How many are looking to IPO in 10 years, vs get acquired in 2-3? How many founders envision themselves as the CEO of their company in 20 years? The fail fast mentality seems, on the surface, to be a reflection on an underlying current in the founder mindset: that entrepreneurship is a way to make enough money that you won't have to get a "real job". Just slug it out fo a few years, then become an angel yourself.
"Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast."
It's a motivation for a startup. Solve the "money problem" early in life, and do more important things later.
I had that essay in mind when I wrote that comment. I agree with Paul, to an extent. It certainly does make economic sense both for individual founders, and for angels, to view entrepreneurship as a ~3 year endeavour, with the exit strategy being acquisition or bust. I don't, however, think it's ideal for the market as a whole. Google is only around because Yahoo refused to give Larry and Sergey $1M for it, so they decided to see what they could make of the endeavour. Yet Google's impact on the tech world and marketplace has been staggering. What would have happened if eBay, Google, Paypal, Amazon, and Youtube had all sold to Microsoft?
I don't have a problem with people launching websites with the intention of selling them in a couple years, but I do dislike the notion that that is what constitutes successful entrepreneurship. The tech world needs its Googles and Facebooks, which means we need entrepreneurs with vision who are willing to stick with it for the long haul.
On the other hand (and without disagreeing), there are very few technology companies who have been around for 20 years and still produce exciting, relevant products. Perhaps short-lived enterprise also has benefits to the world as a whole?
How many of the angel-backed startups these days are really looking to be long-term players? How many are looking to IPO in 10 years, vs get acquired in 2-3? How many founders envision themselves as the CEO of their company in 20 years? The fail fast mentality seems, on the surface, to be a reflection on an underlying current in the founder mindset: that entrepreneurship is a way to make enough money that you won't have to get a "real job". Just slug it out fo a few years, then become an angel yourself.