I would say that bootstrapped single-technical-founder software companies are more likely to succeed, because it only needs to generate enough revenue to support one person, and software is relatively low cost to build and deliver (compared to a food/restaurant) compared to a startup backed by venture funding that needs to reach hundreds of millions in revenue to be a "success".
And the reward is generally lower too - a steady income stream that can go upwards of high six, maybe lower seven figures. Obviously if you want to keep building, hiring more people, etc, then it starts to look more like a "regular" company. But, outside of rare exceptions which are known but uncommon, a bootstrapped company is not going to become a billion dollar company without any outside funding.
That's what I mean by risk/reward. Certainly time is a big "cost" but again, the "risk of failure" in a bootstrapped software company is lower than a venture backed startup.
OK, we're working off of different definitions of "bootstrapped startup", hence the seeming disagreement. When I hear "bootstrapped startup" that doesn't - to me - mean a company which is intended to remain a single-person company, or to be a "lifestyle business" or whatever. In my book, the goal is the same, bootstrapping vs. VC are just different tactical elements on the path.
But, outside of rare exceptions which are known but uncommon, a bootstrapped company is not going to become a billion dollar company without any outside funding.
You're probably right in the strictest sense. But one might be a hundred million dollar company, which is still a different order or achievement than the retaurant/plumber/dry-cleaner type deal.
And the reward is generally lower too - a steady income stream that can go upwards of high six, maybe lower seven figures. Obviously if you want to keep building, hiring more people, etc, then it starts to look more like a "regular" company.
Of course I'm biased, since we (Fogbeam Labs) are choosing the bootstrapping approach for now, and we aspire to be a billion dollar company one day. But the "for now" may be the key point in that sentence. We haven't unilaterally ruled out taking outside money someday, but we don't feel the need right now.
compared to a startup backed by venture funding that needs to reach hundreds of millions in revenue to be a "success".
Yeah, if we don't eventually reach the "hundreds of millions in revenue" I'll feel like we failed. The only exception would be in the event of an acquisition. If we got acquired while still bootstrapping, a much smaller acquisition could result in a financial windfall for the founders, since we retain (between us, at the moment) 100% of the equity in the company. But it would still need to be enough to give us "FU Money" or I'll feel like we failed. :-)
And the reward is generally lower too - a steady income stream that can go upwards of high six, maybe lower seven figures. Obviously if you want to keep building, hiring more people, etc, then it starts to look more like a "regular" company. But, outside of rare exceptions which are known but uncommon, a bootstrapped company is not going to become a billion dollar company without any outside funding.
That's what I mean by risk/reward. Certainly time is a big "cost" but again, the "risk of failure" in a bootstrapped software company is lower than a venture backed startup.