Stories with Tag Profitability

• Are you VC-funded? No, we're profitable

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-18 23:08:06

  Verbose tl;dr

  Jason Bosco's post celebrates the milestone of his company, SendGrid, achieving profitability instead of relying on venture capital funding. He emphasizes the deliberate choice to prioritize building a sustainable and profitable business from the ground up, highlighting the benefits of controlling their own destiny and focusing on customer needs. This approach, while potentially slower in terms of rapid scaling, allowed them to build a stronger foundation and ultimately led to a more rewarding outcome in the long run. The post implicitly contrasts the often pressured, growth-at-all-costs mentality of VC-backed startups with SendGrid's more measured, organic path to success.

  Jason Bosco's Twitter post, entitled "Are you VC-funded? No, we're profitable," delves into the contrasting philosophies and operational realities between venture capital-backed enterprises and those that prioritize profitability. He posits that while the inquiry "Are you VC-funded?" is frequently perceived as a compliment, implying scale and potential, it often masks a fundamental difference in operational strategy. Mr. Bosco argues that a response of "No, we're profitable" is not merely an alternative answer, but rather a declaration of a distinct, and arguably more sustainable, business model. He elaborates on this by suggesting that venture-funded companies are often driven by growth at all costs, sometimes prioritizing market share acquisition and rapid expansion over the generation of consistent profits. This approach, while potentially leading to significant valuations and eventual market dominance, often necessitates substantial external funding and carries inherent risks. Conversely, profitable businesses, as highlighted by Mr. Bosco, operate under a different set of principles, focusing on fiscal responsibility, controlled growth, and the generation of positive cash flow. This allows them to remain independent and less susceptible to the pressures of external investors, while simultaneously demonstrating a robust and inherently sustainable business model. He concludes by implying that profitability, though perhaps less glamorous than the rapid ascent often associated with venture capital, represents a more stable and ultimately more desirable path for certain businesses. This underlying stability, he suggests, allows for greater control, long-term viability, and a more measured approach to growth.

  • startups
  • funding
  • Venture Capital
  • VC
  • Profitability
  • Bootstrapping
  • business models
  • entrepreneurship
  • SaaS
  • software as a service
  • Indie Hackers
  • growth
  • Business Strategy

  Summary of Comments ( 10 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43406293

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely discussed the merits and drawbacks of bootstrapping vs. VC funding. Several pointed out the inherent bias in Jason Bosco's original tweet, noting that he's incentivized to promote bootstrapping as a founder of a bootstrapped company. Others argued that profitability allows for more control and long-term vision, while VC funding enables faster growth, albeit with potential pressure to prioritize investor returns over other goals. Some users shared personal experiences with both models, highlighting the trade-offs involved. A few questioned the longevity of Bosco's "forever company" aspiration in a constantly evolving market. The idea of "ramen profitable," where founders earn just enough to survive, was also discussed as a viable alternative to both VC funding and robust profitability.

  The Hacker News post "Are you VC-funded? No, we're profitable" (linking to a tweet about a company proudly proclaiming its profitability) sparked a discussion with several compelling comments. Many commenters expressed appreciation for the company's focus on profitability over growth-at-all-costs, viewing it as a refreshing counterpoint to the prevailing startup narrative. Some highlighted the long-term sustainability and resilience that profitability offers, particularly in uncertain economic times.

  Several commenters delved into the nuances of "profitable," questioning whether it referred to gross profit, operating profit, or net profit, and emphasizing the importance of clarifying the specific type of profitability being claimed. Others discussed the potential trade-offs between prioritizing profitability and pursuing rapid growth, acknowledging that while profitability can be a strength, it might also limit a company's ability to aggressively capture market share.

  A few commenters shared anecdotal experiences, either from their own businesses or from observing other companies, about the benefits and challenges of bootstrapping versus seeking VC funding. These anecdotes provided real-world context to the broader discussion about different funding models and their implications for company strategy and culture.

  Some commenters also touched upon the signaling effect of proclaiming profitability, suggesting that it could be a way to attract a different type of investor or customer, one who values stability and sustainable growth over rapid scaling. There was also discussion about the potential for a shift in investor sentiment, with more investors potentially favoring profitable businesses over those focused solely on growth. Finally, a few commenters offered practical advice for companies aiming for profitability, such as focusing on customer acquisition cost and lifetime value.

• DeepSeek focuses on research over revenue

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-14 08:07:53

  Verbose tl;dr

  DeepSeek, a coder-focused AI startup, prioritizes open-source research and community building over immediate revenue generation. Founded by former Google and Facebook AI researchers, the company aims to create large language models (LLMs) that are freely accessible and customizable. This open approach contrasts with the closed models favored by many large tech companies. DeepSeek believes that open collaboration and knowledge sharing will ultimately drive innovation and accelerate the development of advanced AI technologies. While exploring potential future monetization strategies like cloud services or specialized model training, their current focus remains on fostering a thriving open-source ecosystem.

  The Financial Times article, "DeepSeek Focuses on Research Over Revenue," delves into the unconventional operational strategy of DeepSeek, an artificial intelligence research company. Eschewing the traditional Silicon Valley emphasis on rapid monetization and aggressive scaling, DeepSeek prioritizes the meticulous and protracted exploration of fundamental AI research, placing it above the immediate pursuit of profitability. This long-term vision, championed by the company's founder and CEO, resembles the patient, exploration-driven approach of Bell Labs in its heyday, a comparison explicitly drawn within the piece. The article details how DeepSeek is deliberately maintaining a smaller team, currently numbering approximately 40 individuals, to foster a deeply collaborative and intellectually stimulating environment. This intimate structure allows for a concentrated focus on complex research problems, unshackled by the pressures of quarterly earnings reports and the demands of a sprawling workforce.

  Furthermore, the article elaborates on DeepSeek's unique funding model, highlighting the significant financial backing it has secured from Jaan Tallinn, a co-founder of Skype. This substantial investment provides DeepSeek with the runway necessary to conduct its research without the urgency to generate revenue. This financial stability enables the company to delve into ambitious projects, pushing the boundaries of AI capabilities without the constraints of short-term financial objectives. The piece portrays DeepSeek's deliberate avoidance of venture capital as a conscious decision to maintain control over its research direction and timeline. This independence permits the pursuit of potentially groundbreaking research avenues that might be deemed too risky or long-term by traditional venture capitalists seeking faster returns. In essence, DeepSeek is depicted as an anomaly in the contemporary tech landscape, a research-centric haven prioritizing the advancement of AI knowledge over immediate financial gain, fostered by a deliberate cultivation of a unique research environment and a long-term financial strategy.

  • deepseek
  • AI research
  • Revenue vs Research
  • Business Strategy
  • artificial intelligence
  • AI Ethics
  • Long-Term Vision
  • Profitability
  • tech startups
  • Financial Times

  Summary of Comments ( 61 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43360522

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed DeepSeek's focus on research over immediate revenue, generally viewing it positively. Some expressed skepticism about their business model's long-term viability, questioning how they plan to monetize their research. Others praised their commitment to open source and their unique approach to AI research, contrasting it with the more commercially-driven models of larger companies. Several commenters highlighted the potential benefits of their decoder-only transformer model, particularly its efficiency and suitability for specific tasks. The discussion also touched on the challenges of attracting and retaining talent in the competitive AI field, with DeepSeek's research focus being seen as both a potential draw and a potential hurdle. Finally, some users expressed interest in learning more about the specifics of their technology and research findings.

  The Hacker News post "DeepSeek focuses on research over revenue" (linking to a Financial Times article about the AI company DeepSeek) has several comments discussing the viability of DeepSeek's business model and the broader landscape of AI research and commercialization.

  A significant portion of the discussion revolves around DeepSeek's apparent prioritization of research publications over immediate revenue generation. Some commenters express skepticism about this approach, questioning whether a company can sustain itself long-term without a clear path to profitability. They argue that impactful research often emerges from organizations with substantial resources, typically acquired through commercial success. One commenter points out the historical trend of large tech companies (like Google and Meta) absorbing AI research talent and labs, suggesting that DeepSeek might face a similar fate if they don't demonstrate financial viability.

  Conversely, other commenters commend DeepSeek's focus on research, viewing it as a refreshing departure from the prevailing emphasis on rapid monetization in the tech industry. They argue that prioritizing fundamental research could lead to more significant breakthroughs in the long run, even if it requires a longer time horizon for financial returns. Some suggest that DeepSeek might be aiming for acquisition by a larger company as an exit strategy, leveraging their research output as their primary asset.

  The discussion also touches upon the challenges of commercializing cutting-edge AI research. Commenters note the difficulty of translating research results into practical applications and the competitive landscape of the AI industry. Some express concern about the "AI hype cycle," where inflated expectations can lead to disappointment and disillusionment if real-world applications don't materialize quickly enough.

  Furthermore, the conversation delves into the specific area of encoder models, which DeepSeek specializes in. Commenters discuss the potential applications of these models, including search, recommendations, and other information retrieval tasks. There's also some discussion of the technical aspects of encoder models and their advantages over other AI architectures.

  Finally, some commenters express interest in learning more about DeepSeek's specific research projects and publications, highlighting the desire for more technical details beyond the information provided in the Financial Times article.