For early-stage companies, far scarier if they’re in-person. You only need to hire a few strong people, so having “access to more talent because we’re remote” isn’t applicable. And remote collab for a small team isn’t on the same level as in-person collab and velocity

I do wonder if this just highlights our perception and default thinking, that remote=lazy and in-person=hyper productive. Id take 10 superstar eng remote > 10 okay engs in person 🤷‍♂️

None?

At some point in the growth, fully in-person becomes a competitive disadvantage for hiring.

Important to recall that they compete with you on product, but also for *labor*

things that i get nervous about with new competitors: 1) have they done it before 2) do they have access to world class eng 3) do they have access to $$ 4) do they have a killer distribution hook ..... 99) are they remote or in person

I think the question a lot of us are faced with is closer to: you are an in person startup, a new startup of competent founders form that is fully remote allowing them to grow the team X% faster than you (while holding the talent bar equal). At what value of X are you scared?

(4) none of the above, I don't think it actually matters very much.

Whichever one you're not doing. To do a startup, you need to have a lot of faith in your ability to execute. However, if you happened to make the wrong in-office/remote bet, the worry (however small) would be that difference overcomes your execution.