I was definitely talking about the first category (though not necessarily public only; AFAIK there are some [many?] private companies that fit that profile). I agree that those revenue multiples are high, though I'm not sure I would refer to them as "sky-high". Who knows what kind of numbers we will see in the future ... ;-)
Carnap = see instances and use induction to create hypothesis
Everything else they say about the scientific method is the same.
Herbert Simon, in thinking of sciences of the artificial, used the Carnap method to create a ton of valuable science.
It's not that post-facto is bad - carnap showed otherwise.
It's about the quality of the science and the specificity of the recommendations, that lead to bs.
For instance you can mitigate for survivorship bias by studying the dead as well as the living, and driving deep into the differences. But that's a lot of work!
As a theory, effectuation studies the difference in decision making processes between expert entrepreneurs and corporate CEOs. The result, while similarly post-facto, is delightful. See effectuation.org - Vinod Khosla remarked it was the first useful study on entrepreneurship he had ever read.
For splitting Facebook into face babies, look at p&l lines, geographic lines, what could become api boundaries,different apps, and different apps within fb wall.
So one and more of
WhatsApp vs Instagram vs fb vs messenger
FB video vs FB ads vs fb news
FB EU vs US vs India vs...
FB identity vs fb communication vs fb ads
There was no precursor to regulating standard oil in the last century, and no precursor to regulating Google, FB, Amazon, this century.
Actually both journalists and media are regulated.
Perhaps you should address specifics of why regulation is not required in this case, rather than attack the messenger?
Yeah, and the US definition of libel is incredibly narrow, especially for public figures. Basically, unless you can prove they intentionally lied, forget it. As the Rolling Stone demonstrated, they can go into a story with a pre-existing bias against the subject, skip normal journalistic checks, conceal from readers just how weak the story is and how much it relies on a single source, and say something false and damaging, and that's still not enough; the only thing they could be got on was the odd technicality of counting adding a note to the story after they knew it was wrong as republishing it.
Check out effectuation.org - built networks of people who trust you/you trust, and solve problems for them. Keep solving problems, and you'll find, in 6-12m one or more problems that are worth solving at scale, because they are massive problems for large numbers of people. In this process, don't take funding, keep your runway as long as possible.
This is the method used by expert entrepreneurs, when they take an idea and convert it into a business.
Right, entrepreneurship is the only field of human endeavor where amateurs can become the best in the field without any study or training whatsoever.
Welcome to the mythologizing of the startup world.
For one counter narrative, you should understand why serial entrepreneurs are more successful, why almost the only correlation with success is how many startups a person has done before.
Another counter point is why there's a PayPal mafia and a whole host of successful founders coming out of specific startups.
Yet another counter point is how successful businesses built by people with experience in the same domain somehow don't get counted as 'startups' because they didn't take 'risk'.
Don't fall for the jargon and hype. Expert entrepreneurs have transferable skills that will reduce your risk of failure. It's your bravado and ego that's failing to recognize the difference.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I happen to agree, especially with your first point. Entrepreneurs learn by doing, the more they do, the more they learn which is what post is talking about. Wouldn't my piece support your point about serial entrepreneurs then?
Yes. Your post goes into the first point about serial entrepreneurs, but fails to see the value of learnable entrepreneurial skills, and the value of coming from a successful startup, or with deep domain expertise.
If you're addressing fresh grads, then telling them doing a startup vs learning about a startup vs working in a startup are of different value, would be better. Even Mark suster and Ben horowitz and Steve blank suggest working in a fast growing startup is very useful before doing your own. So there is a way to learn those skills without risk, with a good salary and some small upside potential. As one of them has it, a time to learn and a time to earn...
I guess I reacted a bit to the language which speaks about taking risk very lightly.
I never said anything about quitting your job to do a startup. Much of what I said could be done while having a full time job. My point was in order to learn you should start executing.
> Right, entrepreneurship is the only field of human endeavor where amateurs can become the best in the field without any study or training whatsoever.
The opposite is true in many cases. For example, I suppose you can't sell medical drugs if you're an amateur without any credentials.
Writing off experience on the path to becoming an entrepreneur glorifies the unique challenges of being an entrepreneur, while underplaying the 99% of other work that makes a business successful in the real world.
Was in a very similar position a few years ago after two startups and 7years with zero returns.
More actionably, dev+fin+products = pm in a fintech company or bank.
Or fin+products = evangelist for fintech api startup
Or dev+fin = dev at fintech
Or dev+prod = product manager anywhere.
Or fin+startup = coo for an ops heavy startup at series b+
Check out pmarca archive on careers for support.
I spent my next 4 yrs at two of the big 4 sw companies as a product manager. Best choice ever, huge pay, lots of resources. got lots of shit done at a much faster pace than they are used to. Not stressful compared to startup life. Helped me get a new network, new perspectives, new resources.
Four years to the month, I quit, and now doing a startup again ,and this time it's going much better so far :)
So it ain't the end of the world, just a blip on your journey to eventually building something big.
Will it be your third or fourth or seventh startup that makes it big? Who knows?
The key is to survive that long and make each startup better and you sound like the kind of person who will.
The idea is to start with who you know, what you know, and who you are. Then through conversations with people you know, ask them their problems that they are ready to pay to solve. Find common things that several of them are ready to pay for..
That's a great way to start, and will give you great problems that very few others might want to solve..
By doing more & learning more & meeting more people, you essentially increase your luck surface area in 3 different ways, increasing the odds you'll get lucky.
Many founders I've seen 'got lucky' when they were on the way to the 100th trip to meet customers. Did they get lucky or did they make their luck?
For private companies at around $1Mn-$3Mn ARR growing sub-20% YoY there are very few buyers in the first place.