But it's not a game. When people's businesses (even startups) fail, there's real harm done, maybe harm that will take years to repair. I guess when it's OPM who cares... but that attitude can be a precursor to irresponsible spending/investment and there seems to be a bit of that going around these days.
Not really. Having been a low-level employee on several of these sinking ships in the past few years, the pattern is despicably predictable. Everyone who works for a startup knows the game they are playing. Many of the experienced ones will even see the writing on the wall and bail early. The laid off employees have no trouble finding their next job. Just like in Vegas, there's always another game starting up in Silicon Valley.
The VPs plan for failure going in. They may lose some money, but they'll cover the loses with some of their other investments. They play the odds.
I think the only real harm is to the state of California when hundreds of people are suddenly on unemployment for a month or two between jobs.
http://www.brighthub.com/office/entrepreneurs/articles/78553...
i heard people say that the Valley beats other places of the world in creating Suns, Googles and Facebooks because [one of the reasons] it risks more and considers failure as experience
(harm too, but not that deadly)
If a VC puts money and a startup doesn't get acquired, or goes to an IPO, but becomes profitable, the VC doesn't get anything, right (assuming no dividends)?
So making profit in that sense is still not considered success. So there's some validity to the idea that startups are a game. You're betting on a bigger fool acquiring it, whether it's another company, or the public market. Sort of like buying stocks.
Really it is unlikely that you will create a lifestyle business which is funded with venture money and is one of the things that vcs avoid since it is a failure from their standpoint.
So, everything's a game - with varying odds of winning?
To not be a failure you business must be a HUGE success, grow and profit like only startups like Google and Facebook have.
Customers pay you money, they are what you need to build a business. Having millions of users who don't provide any revenue is only useful if your goal is just to be bought by someone else.
I personally think that it's a sad state of affairs that most startups don't seem to be interested in building businesses, but instead just want to play the acquisition lottery instead.
So either Facebook/google etc. were never start-up or they are making imaginary money(in billions, I must say) from imaginary customers.
But Facebook does impact the rest of society. Families are sharing photos with loved ones, important news with those far away, etc.
Facebook's situation doesn't change my opinion though. It's an exception, not the rule.
A business makes money. You see them all around you. Restaurants, companies that sell products (online and offline), web design firms, etc.
These businesses impact the rest of society. Real, everyday people buy from these businesses and often rely on them. Your family interacts with them, understands them, knows them.
A startup is a game. You play by the rules of the game. You (traditionally) spend a lot of time seeking VC money, get enough VC money to spend the next few years working on whatever you want, regardless of the results, and then either sell the startup, get acquired, or shutdown (exit).
The players of the game are often the only ones involved. They're the founders, the customers, the VCs. The game has very little impact on the rest of society.