True. Indeed actually does fit the definition given above, since they did not require the VC money to start and run the company. Sometimes I post faster than I think.
Except Indeed got the VC infusion in 2005, and only after that did they start becoming a recognizable player in the industry (if my personal experience in the industry isn't enough of a source for this, see http://www.google.com/trends/?q=indeed.com&geo=usa&s...)
From Fred Wilson's blog announcing the partnership[1]:
To Paul and Rony’s credit, during that seven month courtship, they have built Indeed into the leader in the job search market. Their competitors will probably take exception to that comment, but our analysis of traffic, jobs indexed, and name recognition indicates that Indeed is the leader in pure job search.
They did not need the money to start and maintain the business. What their growth rate was before and after the investment is irrelevant; they were a sustainable business without the VC money. Sure, the infusion of money and intangibles gained from having Union Square Ventures as an investor helped propel their rise, and may well have been necessary to push it to a $1B valuation by today. However, it was not necessary for the business[2].
I don't think anyone is arguing that Indeed would still exist had the $5M not come around. The point is that the $5M helped Indeed purchase the traffic/partnerships necessary to make it the #1 job search site on the internet. And without that money, they couldn't have bought their way to their current size - and their current size is reasons 1, 2 and 3 they were acquired.
