I have to echo these comments, given that my current company was founded in late 2001. The horrific job market for engineers in the valley over the next couple of years meant that we could assemble a first-rate team much more easily than we could have in, say, 2005, and it forced us to focus on controlling costs and building revenue sustainably rather than just trying to get huge and grab market share.
Another upside the article doesn't mention is that companies in a downturn tend to face less pressure from VCs to get big fast with no regard for long-term viability, allowing you to build your business for the long haul and focus on quality products and real revenue. At least that's been my experience, and I chalk it up to there being less of an arms race/land grab mentality, along with more of a realization that succeeding in this climate requires a solid business, not just a bunch of non-paying users or meteoric-yet-unmonetized growth.
The primary downside is that companies funded during a downturn tend to get far lower valuations for the same level of funding, giving up a lot more equity than they would in more exuberant times.
Another upside the article doesn't mention is that companies in a downturn tend to face less pressure from VCs to get big fast with no regard for long-term viability, allowing you to build your business for the long haul and focus on quality products and real revenue. At least that's been my experience, and I chalk it up to there being less of an arms race/land grab mentality, along with more of a realization that succeeding in this climate requires a solid business, not just a bunch of non-paying users or meteoric-yet-unmonetized growth.
The primary downside is that companies funded during a downturn tend to get far lower valuations for the same level of funding, giving up a lot more equity than they would in more exuberant times.