The most likely explanation is that it doesn't work. Bootstrapped companies are very strapped for cash. They often use a distributed team early on. if a distributed team worked, at least some startups would continue on the model - after all it's in the company culture and muscle memory. And we would hear about them. (especially when they succeed really big.)

We do, sometimes hear from them:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7134592

   I currently work at bootstrapped, distributed and profitable startup.
   This year we did appx $15mm in rev.
   http://www.inc.com/profile/buysellads (member of the Inc. 500)

So the question is: does this distributed model work for others? Others don't often report in. (And does it work for succeeding really big?)

Maybe it's the term I'm looking, but look through this: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=distributed%20bootstrapped&sor...

As you scroll down try to piece together the story you're seeing. Click through to the companies. As I read it, hiring seems to be one of their biggest challenges. They're just not growing as much as they would like.

18 people in an office can build a $1 billion company with 10 million+ users in 18 months. (instagram.)

What's the closest a distributed team has come to that?

> What's the closest a distributed team has come to that?

Tough comparison since so few companies embrace remote work, but see Automattic.

> does it work for succeeding really big

For really big companies there's always only so many people in any given city that you can hire. What's interesting is that most office based teams are effectively distributed in the collaborative work that they do with offices in other cities, yet they don't embrace individual distributed workers.

But my experience is that very many startups embrace remote work when they are small. (as in, thousands of them do.) They have to - they don't have a choice.

It doesn't seem to scale that well. (As in, they try but fail to scale it.) This is just my experience or impression.

> What's the closest a distributed team has come to that?

Stack Exchange.

> where products for distributed networking and communications are developed, companies are so hell-bent on co-location.

IME, not everyone has equal experience using those tools. It's WAY easier to do a cubicle fly-by than to train your non-technical workforce how Skype works (if that sounds crazy, trust me - it's not).

I work mostly remotely, but I care deeply about communication. I've invested in a great headset so calls aren't plagued by WFH artifacts. I have a cough button. I have a dedicated office in my house. I get up, showered, and dressed every day so I'm online and ready for an ad-hoc video call at all business hours. My internet is fast and stable, and I have two backups in the very rare case it goes down (iPhone tether, Verizon hotspot).

In sum, I don't want my convenience (wfh) to inconvenience anyone else, so I do everything I can to make that the case. It's worked out really well so far. But I can tell you, most developers don't go through the hassle.

I can understand it to an extent - tech is a pretty creative field and creative stuff definitely benefits from co-location. But most of what the average tech worker does day to day is execution, and there's no reason one can't execute from a chair in Anywhereville just as good as a chair in Palo Alto.

The irony about tech being so adverse to remote work is pretty thick, at least that's what my friends in other sectors who work remote with no problem tell me. Even companies who build tools to enable remote work often don't embrace it themselves.