This is a very common sentiment on HN, but... why? I don't get it.
It's not like there aren't people focused on sustainable businesses. 90% of businesses are probably SMBs - just not in tech. For most people in the world, the word entrepreneur means "someone who's opening a McDonalds across the street" or "someone opening a pizza shop". Even in tech, there are plenty of not-hypergrowth companies around (I run a small dev shop, for example).
The reason we here are exposed more to VC-style startups is because a) they make more news, for obvious reasons, but also b) there are structural reasons in tech that favor that style of company, most importantly because software itself is scalable in a way that most things aren't.
I'm not against using tech's natural advantages with scale - that's one of the beauties of software. My concern is with the disproportionate resources being poured into hyper-growth ventures, where the vast majority fail after burning through enormous amounts of capital.
If even a fraction of that talent and investment was redirected toward building sustainable businesses that create real value, rather than just competing for finite resources like user attention or market domination, I believe the tech industry, the tech workers, and society would benefit more in the long run.
First, I think VC makes up a tiny percentage of invested capital, so I'm not sure the intuition of "so much money is thrown at it" is right. There's far, far more capital and talent in e.g. traditional non-software businesses, finance, government, etc. Just look at places like Google, which has 180k employees. Not all are tech/innovation talent, necessarily, but that's probably more than most new startups combined.
In any case, I'm not sure I trust you, me or anyone to be smarter about how to get innovation than our current relatively-free-market capitalistic system, where there's actually pretty good incentives to pursue innovation. Look at how many things today that absolutely improve our world have been created through this messy process. It's apparently monetarily worth it to have 95 failed startups in order to get 5 ones that change the world, and that's probably a good thing for society, because the world is better than it war 20 years ago in terms of technology/innovation.
(The world is worse in other ways, and a different criticism of tech is that some of it can also be negative for society, but that's a separate concern than it being wasteful, which I just don't agree with.)
VC funded companies are into the trillions of total investment (100+B / year adds up). That’s a small but meaningful fraction of global wealth for such a tiny slice of companies. It’s not that these are necessarily bad investments, but growth at any cost tends to suck up a lot more talent than the business actually justifies.
Of course the industry is mostly dumb investments. Looking back Google+ was part of a wave of social websites that didn’t really go anywhere. Facebook was founded in 04, Twitter in 06, but in 2011 suddenly everyone wants in on the action… The wave of crypto was similarly almost pure waste but most VC firms aren’t really about wise investment. It’s about charging high fees for funds under managed, they succeed when someone invests not when companies become profitable.
Yeah, they're into trillions, but aren't they like 5% of most pension funds, which are the biggest stores of wealth?
Also, if you're looking at trillions invested, I'd hardly call them startups or speculative investments. It's certainly true that something like OpenAI or Uber spent (and still spend?) many years without making profit, but by the time they're raising rounds of billions, it's no longer anywhere near the same level of risk, and the statistic that "most fail" rings less true.
It's speculative until there's a steady stream of profits paid out to investors. I wouldn't say that the size of the investment or of the business makes any difference in that aspect.
As founder of a 15 year micro consultancy I'm nodding along. We've chosen quite deliberately not to grow. I don't want staff or huge wads of cash, I don't want to be rich; I want a gentle, family focused, sustainable, comfortable life. Why grow and face all the stress of growing when I'm perfectly happy with things as they are?
Kagi: I use and pay for it and I love it. I'm very hopeful that they have made something excellent - each time I dip into Google with a !g (and it's becoming more and more rare!) I'm horrified by the clusterfuck it's now become. The clean, simple, accurate results of Kagi are fresh air and well worth paying for.
I've seen the founder say on many occasions that they're not aiming to be "a Google killer" and I'm glad. With scale comes inevitable enshittification. I just hope their business model is enough to support a thriving - but small - business.
SMBs have roughly the same characteristics even when they do that.
That is, the vast majority still fail, most do not make enough profit to come close to sustainability, and the 80-90% of revenue is earned by the top 10% of SMBs
Even if you go through the data and try to restrict it to some definition of "not going to be an obvious failure" it's not pretty.
It is a fascinating read though.
So while I agree with your sentiment it does not seem to help much in practice.
For Kagi, there is a big question mark around the availability of the third-party search API endpoints they rely on. If search evolves further and further away from textual matching, that will impact them as well. (For search providers, it could be commercially reasonable to replace more or less traditional document indexing with a way to synthesize responses—at a very high level similar to what some analytical tools for time series do.)
I hope that by then, they have deployed their own crawlers and indices, so that there's still an alternative, rather than merely adopting the latest industry trends.
