While our readers' responses were pretty evenly split, the split between startups that seek capital first far outweigh those that seek to make equity-for-services deals. Also, the number of VC firms (well in excess of 700 in the U.S. alone) is far greater than firms offering services or a mix of cash and services.

Are we just too used to capital? Are "venture services" firms still too new? Why don't we have more services-for-equity programs?

"You need money to buy services, and most of the time, since you do not know where exactly to shop, you overpay or pay for something you do not need," wrote commenter Marfi.

Commener Jorge made a good case for mentor-driven accelerators when he said, "Just getting the cash won't get me some good mentors[...] The main reason why startups need cash is because the model is either not clear or not set to work in the short term[...] Just cash ins't enough unless you're an experienced entrepreneur."

Power commenter Warren Bendetto spoke to the sometimes arbitrary nature of valuation, saying, "When you're starting out, you really have no idea what you'll need. You base your anticipated amount of capital you need to raise based on assumptions and guesstimates that are 99% bullshit.

If you're lucky, you'll raise too much money[...] So you buy servers you don't need, you hire too many people, everyone gets 36" double LCD monitors, and your kitchen has a vending machine that spits out free MacBooks.

That's all fun, until you realize that you gave away 80% of your company in exchange for the funding. By the time you realize that you could have raised less and kept more equity, it's too late."

Salient points, all.

So, what is it about the magic and allure of VC that keeps startups pitching for more funding when they might be better served to take services instead?

Chris Wanstrath, founder of the bootstrapped and profitable GitHub, was in the to-VC-or-not-to-VC panel I moderated at SXSW yesterday. When I asked him if he'd ever considered taking capital to get his business up and running, he said that he absolutely hadn't. He had instead chosed to make business deals, strategic partnerships that would allow him to get the goods and services he needed without being financially dependent on others or having to give up equity.

In that panel, I asked audience members in the packed room how many were currently considering seeking or were actively trying to secure capital for their startups. Between 80 and 90 percent of folks indicated that they'd be making the rounds on Sand Hill Road.

I wish I'd had the chance to ask them if VC was still their preferred option after the panel was over. It seems now that there are more options and alternatives for smart, lean startups to get further with less reliance on the complicated and sometimes predatory business of venture capital.

As for why there aren't more venture services firms in existence, some have said it's because getting the capital to run a VC firm is a heck of a lot easier than building the infrastructure to offer startups mentorship, office space, and other business-building services.

Do you think there's enough justification - both in terms of demand from startups and in terms of return on investment for firms - to warrant more of this new breed of startup support? We'd appreciate your thoughts in the comments, particularly if you're involved in the VC/startup ecosystem.

Specific areas of interest for IBM investment include analytics, clean tech, cloud computing, smart grids, electronic health care, and green data centers. The company's expansion into Vietnam is a response to what they see as accelerated IT growth in that area.

"The country's IT sector is growing over 20 percent annually, fueled by massive Internet expansion and a younger population that's driving consumer demand for infrastructure improvements."

The first IBM Innovation Center in Vietnam is the sixth such site to open since 2007 and the forty-third in the past decade. The center will be based in Ho Chi Minh City and will focus on the development and marketing of new tech across banking, telecom, energy, and government industries. Here, local developers and others will find training and access to open standards-based tech.

The company will also be collaborating with local VCs to support the development of emerging technology products. Similar partnerships now account for nearly a third of IBM's revenue and have doubled since 2008, when IBM partnered with around 8,500 companies.

IBM is also turning its attention and earmarking funds to develop relationships with the University of Technology in Ho Chi Minh City and the College of Technology in Hanoi. Their goal is to create a curriculum in cloud computing at the former institution and service sciences at the latter. Computing labs and new departments will be created as a result.

IBM is also debuting the first local-language version of developerWorks, its online resource and social network for developers.

As for IBM's strategy of investment in growth sectors outside the U.S. and Western Europe, Freeman wrote, "The strategy is paying off.

"For example, in Brazil, more than half of the country's estimated 2,000 independent software vendors (ISVs) have become IBM partners. In China, IBM continues to recruit partners at record rates, with more than 11,000 registered so far this year. In India, IBM has over 2,500 business partners across 200 cities, ranging from small resellers to global systems integrators and ISVs - business partners now drive 35 percent of revenue for IBM in India."

Certainly, this smacks of global domination; after all, is not IBM the Starbucks of IT? The company's unrelenting expansion in areas that can least refuse its injections of tech and capital has been making headlines for years. It likely wouldn't hurt IBM to create dependent tech ecosystems in these areas, and we cannot overlook the fact that IT labor is cheaper in many of these parts of the world.

Some have also begun to question IBM's role in South Africa, an area that Freeman specifically mentioned as a growth area ripe for strong investments. The company has a rough history there; a U.S. federal court recently ruled that IBM can be held responsible for enabling apartheid by providing regime leaders with IT infrastructure used to disenfranchise and harm black citizens.

When IBM declared its lack of responsibility for how clients would use its products, the judge countered, "That level of willful blindness in the face of crimes in violation of the law of nations cannot defeat an otherwise clear showing of knowledge that the assistance IBM provided would directly and substantially support apartheid."

IBM is not UNICEF. Historically, like almost any multinational corporation, they have followed profit amorally, whether the revenue streams led to their helping oppress or enlighten the citizens of any geographical area. These partnerships in developing areas are highly profitable for the company. And let us not imagine that their desire to invest in green tech or healthcare-related tech comes from any kind of altruism: These are hot, bankable areas right now.

Still, sometimes capitalism does work for the best for all parties involved. Let's hope that Vietnamese techies benefit as much from IBM's expansion into their country as the company itself doubtless will.

Much like Remarkable Wit, a venture technology firm we recently covered, SproutBox focuses on product development and essential business services, investing talent in startup companies in exchange for equity.

At the BIGOmaha conference this morning, founders Trotzke and Wisler sat down to talk about the SproutBox approach and what they think will make a good startup project.

Starting today and until August 8, SproutBox will accept applications from entrepreneurs. Interested entrepreneurs and start-ups can apply online at SproutBox.com.

As a means of proving the model, SproutBox has already completed work on two projects. The team developed DecideAlready, a web-based decision-making tool, and CheddarGetter, an easy-to-use online subscription management and billing tool which is currently accepting requests to join its private beta.

Marcus explains a little bit about the differences between venture technology and venture capital models and how his firm adopts good ideas and "A team" executives-in-training to create living, breathing tech startups without blowing through ungodly amounts of cash. He also talks about the need for a solid revenue model for even the best of tech ideas.

Remarkable Wit is a little bit TechStars, a little bit Idealab, and a little bit outside any box.

The firm's flagship project, an expertise marketplace called Moontoast, launched this spring at South by Southwest.