How true is this quote: "Startups don't care about code quality but instead just get shitty code out the door only to have to continually fix it as the product grows"?

It's very true, thanks to the nature of the internet. Just look at Google. The biggest post-startup on the internet can never launch a finished product, despite their size. Google Music, Google+, Docs etc. They deliberately launch half-finished shoddy products that break, and have a BBB rating of F thanks to their appalling and non-existent customer service. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-17/tech/30047029_1_google-tv-google-music-larry-page Below are Facebook posters.

This unfortunately is a very "loaded" question. A better question is: Why do startups sacrifice code quality for speed to market and how does that impact their company long term? Startups don't inherently want to sit on a mound of tech debt but the pressure to release quickly and pivot frequently can lead to bad code. This doesn't apply to every startup but I'd assume every startup that has grown rapidly has faced this trade off. Quality Code vs. Speed to Market. At the end it's how a Startup refactors their crappy code over time and when they start that process of refactoring that allows them to get out from under the mound of tech debt.