The climate has changed in that it's easier for startups to raise more, but even those that do not can still be very successful. Justin.tv or Weebly would not require any more money to start today than they did six years ago -- if anything it's gotten cheaper.

I remember David from Weebly noting that they narrowly avoided the pinch by becoming profitable (circa 2009?) Now AFAIK they are kicking ass.

Yes, the Weebly story is amazing. He covered part of it at Startup School a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_b228qEVi8

Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down.

I keep mistaking your nick for pg's on comment threads. I am gonna call you "the other paul"(of yc) in my head from now on if you don't mind :)

I think one thing that is happening here is that certain types of startups are throwing money at problems that need to be solved in order to grow enough that raising additional funds is easy and/or not required.

An example would be that the founding team isn't skilled enough to get through the product market fit stage, so they hire in order to fill those gaps. Or maybe it's a chicken & egg problem, which often requires lots of time and luck to crack.

With the high salary requirements that engineers and designers have today, especially in Silicon Valley, this means burn-rates get very high very fast, even with only a few employees.

I remember five years ago in most cases you'd take a major salary cut (which was made up for in equity) when joining a startup as a first hire. You took a big risk to be employee number one or two. These days the landscape is so competitive you not only get equity, but a great salary as well.

I wonder if this has something to do with what you're hinting at?