jastreich

They is technically plural. There is no good singular gender neutral pronoun. So, "he/she", "s/he", "he" or "they" are fine by me; we know what the author means.

Even if angles don't have a seat, they are still more trouble than their worth, IMHO. I personally won't seek funding from traditional methods; but luckily, the world is changing and there are some new non-traditional methods (passive income (subscription, or digital media download), donations to private companies, crowd funding, and who knows whats to come).

My company is "in the black," as it has made more money than I've put in, and holds no debt. I'm working on new business model than what I started with. I'm starting small, growing slow, and in it for the long haul. PIH Isn't a bad life, and it is a great way to make it SG w/o accelerators and networking exercises. And oh, I do care about making people's lives better with technology.

Here's the problem with that... False assumptions being made in the article include: - You need venture capital to be successful - The goal should be public trading Cargil, Koch Industries, Mars, LAMPO Group and many others remain privately held. - You can measure the potential for financial success of a company in some real tangible way, and tell how close you are too that potential.

I also don't think that money and control are the only two orientations to have here. Or perhaps there are subgroups to money and control orientation.

For instance, Fred Rogers (Mr. Rogers) wanted to pass on his show to another; but, couldn't find someone who met his high standards of morals, communication skills, and permeability. After his death, the Fred Rogers Company (formerly Family Communications) did launch a new show, and it was still important enough to get Fred's widows blessing before it aired. Is that control oriented, or is quality oriented?

Or take a look at company founding CEOs that have missions or beliefs that forbid them from taking shortcuts to maximize profits, like an unwillingness to outsource to parts of the world that treat labor like cattle. Is that simple "control orientation?

I am control oriented, and for that reason won't take on debt, venture capital, investors or partners. I am clear, it is mine, I have a vision for it, and you can't have it or pervert it. Profit isn't as important as delivering a good product and actually touching lives.

It depends on what you mean by changing the world. For instance. The MS team working on Microsoft word upgrades doesn't change the world in a meaningful way, when was the last time you heard "Now MS Word has feature X, my life is saved, my children are healthier."

Meanwhile, I know two brothers who from a simple YouTube channel (not even devs) whose followers have topped the Kiva loan program, raised millions and millions of dollars for charities around the world, are actively educating people of all ages about history, literature, current events and science. One of the brothers has made the New York Best Sellers List in young adult fiction with a book about the struggles of cancer. With less capital they are decreasing world suck more than MS Word development team.

So, what about apps and web apps? A really cool childrens book that is interactive and encourages kids to read or learn about a cool and important topic, I would argue, will have greater net value than Angry Birds even if the audience is smaller. An app designed for companies (like electric companies) to use, that forecasts weather conditions that aren't storm conditions but are more severe than the company can operate saves lives, while the market is small. I'd argue saving even one life or helping teach one child how to read is changing the world in a big way.

My message of the day, "Do work that matters."