I'd love to hear a proper cointerargument, and not a dismissal.

CGamesPlay 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

When Y Combinator gives $10,000 for a 7% stake in the company, the company goes from being "worth" $130,000 before the money to being worth $140,000 after, and they have $10,000 more in their bank account. Every dollar the company earns afterwards also increases their bank account by $1.00.

When an app store takes a 30% commission on sales, every dollar the company earns afterwards increases their bank account by $0.70.

The percent doesn't really matter (if YC took 30% ownership or app stores took 7% commission), the comparison doesn't really make sense either way.

▲

close04 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Every dollar the company earns afterwards also increases their bank account by $1.00.

Wouldn’t this be true also if YC owned 100% of the company? On the other hand from that point on, from every dollar the company is worth YC gets 7%.

You need to know what is (or will be) bigger and more critical for your success, the investment worth 7% of your company, or the 30% Apple takes from your app. Either of these numbers can be millions or $0.

I’m very much for alternative storefronts and letting people choose. Android already proved this works just fine and most people still go for the official store. But I don’t think the argument above paints a clear, unbiased picture.

	▲	CGamesPlay 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, that was my conclusion as well. > The percent doesn't really matter (if YC took 30% ownership or app stores took 7% commission), the comparison doesn't really make sense either way.

▲

ianbutler 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Thank you, making it concrete expressed what I was trying to say way better than I was doing in my reply :P

▲

ianbutler 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Equity ownership doesn't directly effect operating capacity on the same timescale as revenue. (sure investment does but in a positive way, but again not quite the same) Where as revenue does on shorter timescales, and 30% off revenue is an ongoing constraint to operating capacity day to day in a way ownership just isn't.

They don't behave the same way so to make the comparison didn't make any sense.

Note: Edited this a few times because words are hard.

▲

kortilla 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Ownership doesn’t cost the company anything.

30% of revenue cuts off the flow of money immediately even long before the company is profitable.