ok, but those 19 investments didn't have to take VC money. if they produced great and useful products, then why couldn't they grow organically, borrow from a bank, etc.? I mean it's just complete nonsense to complain about the fact that you failed using someone else's money.
They could grow organically and there are plenty of companies that do, but this is not the Silicon Valley way, and this is what the article is complaining about.
well, to be honest, I don't get that criticism. Why does it need to be the silicon valley way? you want to build a 10 million dollar business? you can do that in Boise, Idaho without VC funding. I mean the article is just clickbait.
