I'm in 100% agreement with you. Also, there's something to be said for a company that is totally autonomous and free from the pressures of an investor.

Though not a hard/fast rule and clearly a generalisation - Building a company with investors shifts the focus to helping maximise shareholder value. Building a company free from investors encourage the founders to think about the customers.

I've always believed if you focus on the customers and build solid products that add real value, the money bit will come naturally.

While I don't deny the benefits and advantages of having investors (money, networking, advice etc), there are many ways to "skin the cat" and build a business.

Listen, the money isn't free. It comes with a few protections (for them) and obligations (to them). If you've got good leverage when you set up your terms and go with a good investor, I don't think it has to be that bad. I know plenty of people who like their investors. Many people who take money seek investment for their second effort (even if they're rich and don't need it).

Bumbling board members are a risk in the same way that (as the OP points out) a pile of money creates the danger that you'll hire too fast and build a meeting-heavy company. You need to be smart and disciplined. Desperate (or unlucky) entrepreneurs can end up with crappy investors and undisciplined entrepreneurs can end up with 12 VPs and day long meetings before they even have a product.

Clearly, anecdotes abound and there's no hard data... But I think the only one who was implying that there were any rules was the author.

We all know here that being an entrepreneur is more like art than science. There is no one true way. Something which worked for someone in one instance may not work for you even if by rationale it makes sense and all the stars are aligned.