I must say that's impressive. I've been thinking about this for some time. I'm wondering if this new wave of companies would be a problem for the economy. Running a company is getting easier every year. That's good, more companies means more job opportunities. On the other hand, as we can see from the article, you can run a very lean remote company and still grow and be successful. Such companies would hire less and raise the hiring bar and if you're not great in what you do then you'll have a hard time finding a job. But long term it's a positive trend.
I was going to say, it's like looking at the "gig" economy as a positive trend. This type of hiring process leads to less job stability and no health insurance, both of which are sorely under represented in the US for as developed a nation as we are. I think this is one more disconnect in business and success that we have been seeing in recent history.
>On the other hand, as we can see from the article, you can run a very lean remote company and still grow and be successful.
Eh, this is a pretty unique situation. They spent a lot of money and effort building the initial product and growing users. Now that the product is (mostly) feature complete and they have sufficient users they can run lean and mean. But that doesn't mean they could have run lean and mean while building the company. IMHO, you still need the upfront investment to build out the core product and acquire a sufficient customer base.
The reality of today with interest rates so low is that growth is more valued than cash flow. So while lots of companies (Dropbox, Slack, AirBnB) could do something like this and start generating a bunch of cash they create more value in the eyes of investors by growing.
