There's a well known and clearly visible trend that more institutional (i.e. not friends and family) investment is moving later stage for "normal" software businesses.
The reasons are well known: the cost of developing software (at least the initial prototype) have dropped far enough that a great many people can afford to build a prototype themselves.
Further, the cost of market validation has also dropped enough such that a great many companies can achieve some market validation without outside capital.
Put together, it's a reasonable expectation that a dedicated entrepreneur will put in both the minimal time and money to both build a prototype and prove that real customers exist who view the solution as valuable.
However, the cost of building a big business is still high. Specifically, ramping up development, hosting, marketing (team and spend), sales, etc. still costs enough money that outside capital helps.
This last point is key and answers the question of "why would I raise capital if I did all of the work of building a prototype and getting my initial customers?".
Lastly, the ultimate goal is to succeed. There are a number of different paths to success, but one of the worst failures is not outright failure of a company.
If you think about the possible outcomes of a business, there are basically 3:
1. Complete failure...business shuts down
2. Moderate success...$2 million, $5 million up to maybe $25 million
3. Success... $25 million plus with the ultimate goal of doing 9 or 10 figures a year
#1 sucks. Maybe more without venture capital as its your money you lost, but it's good in no way.
#3 is great whether or not you get venture financing. Depending on your financing, you'll walk away with $5 million or more personally.
#2 can either be a wonderful success, or the worst failure (worse than #1). #2 is great if you bootstrapped. If you bootstrapped, you'll walk away with $5 million or more in your pocket. If you grow to $10M+ in revenue, then you're financially free.
However, #2 sucks if you raised significant capital. Most likely, you hate the company because you'll walk away will nothing even though the company has had some success. Investors will hate the company because the investment is sucking up time, focus and will never be a winner.
In this light, waiting to raise capital until a company is a little bit more mature is a boon for entrepreneurs. If you have a #1 then kill it and move onto the next opportunity. If you have a #3, then go raise (or don't).
But, if you have a #2 then you know you can get rich by bootstrapping, which will prevent you from making the mistake of raising capital for a non-venture fundable business.
There's a well known and clearly visible trend that more institutional (i.e. not friends and family) investment is moving later stage for "normal" software businesses.
Actually the trend in the venture business is actually the opposite. The biggest change in the last few years has been the increase in pre-series A investments, both by "super-angels" (which are structurally mini VC funds) and existing VC firms.
I may have done a poor job of wording as I used the word stage which has a specific meaning. What I meant was the first investment (seed) has moved from idea stage to prototype.
With the clarification, do you think it is accurate?
I haven't noticed any change. We've always hoped people would at least make some sort of prototype. That's how one explores ideas, or at least ideas about software.
The reasons are well known: the cost of developing software (at least the initial prototype) have dropped far enough that a great many people can afford to build a prototype themselves.
Further, the cost of market validation has also dropped enough such that a great many companies can achieve some market validation without outside capital.
Put together, it's a reasonable expectation that a dedicated entrepreneur will put in both the minimal time and money to both build a prototype and prove that real customers exist who view the solution as valuable.
However, the cost of building a big business is still high. Specifically, ramping up development, hosting, marketing (team and spend), sales, etc. still costs enough money that outside capital helps.
This last point is key and answers the question of "why would I raise capital if I did all of the work of building a prototype and getting my initial customers?".
Lastly, the ultimate goal is to succeed. There are a number of different paths to success, but one of the worst failures is not outright failure of a company.
If you think about the possible outcomes of a business, there are basically 3:
1. Complete failure...business shuts down
2. Moderate success...$2 million, $5 million up to maybe $25 million
3. Success... $25 million plus with the ultimate goal of doing 9 or 10 figures a year
#1 sucks. Maybe more without venture capital as its your money you lost, but it's good in no way.
#3 is great whether or not you get venture financing. Depending on your financing, you'll walk away with $5 million or more personally.
#2 can either be a wonderful success, or the worst failure (worse than #1). #2 is great if you bootstrapped. If you bootstrapped, you'll walk away with $5 million or more in your pocket. If you grow to $10M+ in revenue, then you're financially free.
However, #2 sucks if you raised significant capital. Most likely, you hate the company because you'll walk away will nothing even though the company has had some success. Investors will hate the company because the investment is sucking up time, focus and will never be a winner.
In this light, waiting to raise capital until a company is a little bit more mature is a boon for entrepreneurs. If you have a #1 then kill it and move onto the next opportunity. If you have a #3, then go raise (or don't).
But, if you have a #2 then you know you can get rich by bootstrapping, which will prevent you from making the mistake of raising capital for a non-venture fundable business.