I mean sure, if you want to build a lifestyle company, and by the way there's no shame in that.

But the dream, and the reason all the coastal co's are in it, is to be the next Google or Facebook, or Twitter or Snapchat.

You could say an app to get people to come over to your house won't change the world, but people think hey maybe it will grow, or we'll just pivot, and wind up with the next Flickr or Slack, and that's certainly good enough.

Why does every company in this industry need to be either a "lifestyle business" or a Google wannabe? What ever happened to growing a business organically over time, or with non-VC investments?

Because if you're growing organically some VC funded competitor is going to try to grow exponentially, and swallow you up or put you out of business. There's no middle ground because all that looks like to people trying to get a return on their investment is that you aren't trying hard enough. That either means they push you harder, or they fund a competitor if you aren't beholden to them.

Not all niches will attract VC funded competitors. There are plenty tech companies that are profitable, well-capitalized, have moderate organic growth, and compete with similarly sized companies. There certainly is a middle ground.

> There are plenty tech companies that are profitable, well-capitalized, have moderate organic growth, and compete with similarly sized companies.

Sure, but that just means that they and their competitors have already grown to the point where the market is saturated, and any further growth they are experiencing is because the market is growing or to the detriment to their competitors. They probably already had an exponential growth period, although it could have been short-lived if the market is small (and if the market is really small, may not have looked like exponential growth at all, and may have just looked like becoming profitable and leveling out).

You're right that not all niches will attract VC funded competitors, but I think the number niches that meet that criteria are actually very small, in this industry. There's always someone that thinks they can disrupt it somehow, or market it better to show people the market is actually much bigger than it appears. Keep in mind, the VC funded competitor doesn't have to succeed in it's task of taking over or changing the market to have extremely detrimental effects on companies that aren't working with the same paradigm.

Having a market large enough to support a few small companies but not large enough to warrant VC funded competitors that stays that way seems a rarity.

Theory says you'll be run over by the next VC-funded Facebook in your market, and will have to subsist by being a niche business (better service or catering to certain segments).

So, either the next Facebook or lifestyle. Of course, real world is not perfect so there's space for medium-sized businesses, but they're not an economic optimum (they're leaving money on the table either way).

There are plenty of those. The media just doesn't report on them.

> What if most startups only need "good" developers to develop their mostly CRUD apps and don't need "the best" developers?

There are some exceptions, but most any successful technology product needs at least a few great technical leaders, if only to say no to net-negative ideas, provide mentoring to those who need it, and to make strategic technical decisions (architecture, tech stack, technical hiring strategy, etc.).

It doesn't require being in the top 10% of a top 10 school to be able to recognize bad ideas though. The standard you are describing is what I would call "qualified" or "competent" not "elite" or "top".

There are highly competent people in both the lower 90% of the top 10 schools as well as in non-top tier schools

I didn't say anything about schools.

And as for competence, there's an order or two difference between a developer that can add some more CRUD to a service and one that can say no to doing the exact same thing when it is a net negative to the system and/or organization. It's one of those things that sounds simple, but it takes a lot to even know which technical battles are the top priority.

What they say they're getting ("the top talent") and what they actually get are two separate things.

Hey, the worst graduate from Stanford is better than the best graduate of Ohio State, right?

Sarcasm?

Yup.

It's true that not everybody needs it, that's a separate argument probably. Companies that feel they don't are often outsourcing though, no? There's definitely the argument of "talent pays for itself (in multiples)" to think about.

They must have a different definition of "top" talent. I'm thinking of people like Daniel Bernstein and Fabrice Bellard. The list is really very short.

But of course that definition is useless to a VC fueled, exponentially growing trainwreck/unicorn that wants to hire hundreds or thousands of "engineers".

Top talent includes good, too. Leaving only mediocre to bad for everyone else.

We're on the smaller side in SF, and I'm having a terrible time finding good ops people.