There is a lot of truth in this essay but readers should know how to interpret it. When PG assumes stable revenue growth for &quot;the last several months&quot;, even just revenue at all, for a startup that&#x27;s been operating for not even a year, that already narrows down the set of startups for which his advice is applicable quite a bit.<p>What we&#x27;re essentially talking about then is a specific breed of startup (a popular breed, but still a specific breed):<p><pre><code>  - Pure software &#x2F; probably SaaS or a website.
  - Margin close to 100%.
  - Essentially no R&amp;D component, i.e. just wiring together existing technologies.
  - Perfect product distribution infrastructure, i.e. internet or mobile app company.
</code></pre>
What readers should know however is that outside of this subset of startups there is a wide variety of flowers in the startup ecosystem that can all bloom in different ways and at different times.<p>And that early growth isn&#x27;t the only metric that makes a startup attractive. Growth a powerful one that eventually will be more important than everything else, but there are other things -- such as strong core IP or having early product in a small but growing market -- that make startups interesting.<p>Then there&#x27;s startups that require literally tens of millions of dollars of up-front investment and years of R&amp;D before there even is a product. Are those all doomed? I guess not. Given the right execution and strategy and patient investors these companies can also be extraordinarily valuable. They are just a different kind though.