111–120 of 243 posts
(This got published a little early because it got indexed. I'm still going through and fixing some typos and will maybe add a few other things.)
Just wondering because it sounds like this is the collective wisdom of all the partners (even if you're the one that wrote it).
>It’s important that you distort reality for others but not yourself. I would love to see more content and discussion around this. I understand clearly why it is important to pitch who you will be not who you are when recruiting and raising money but when it comes to day to day, doesn't this contradict what you had said earlier about sharing all of the good and bad with your employees? Replacing your water jugs with…
Founder/VC/moneyhat friendly isn't always employee friendly. Employees exist to be exploited so the founders and VCs become extremely wealthy.
The best way to drive productivity is to convince your employees there's a vague "external enemy" they've gotta beat. Turn it into mental cult gymnastics. Bind their self worth to the success of the company. Grow at all costs.
There are circles of belief though. You should always know the truth yourself (founder), then you decide which lies to tell the board, then which lies to tell your management, then which lies to tell your employees, then which lies to tell the media/public/world. (where "lies" also equals "putting a spin on the truth" or selectively withholding information (hiding faults in the hopes of improving them before failing completely, etc).)
If this is something that is expected to be around for awhile I recommend talking to an editor. Friends are good to check for overall content and typos, but they are too familiar with the subject to check how well you convey something and too nice to really tear through the text objectively.
he commented that it was released early.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I was reacting to the definition of "lifestyle business" not the label. I don't know about you, but personally I get annoyed when people create a false dichotomy between a startup and a "lifestyle business". Not everyone who declines to play the VC game is a "lifestyle business". It should also not be a dirty word, which is the way it comes across to me sometimes.
Lifestyle business is a dirty word somewhere? "Lifestyle" business is a significantly more rational choice in comparison with VC backed startup if one considers their personal happiness and psychological wellbeing as an important metric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I was reacting to the definition of "lifestyle business" not the label. I don't know about you, but personally I get annoyed when people create a false dichotomy between a startup and a "lifestyle business". Not everyone who declines to play the VC game is a "lifestyle business". It should also not be a dirty word, which is the way it comes across to me sometimes.
Lifestyle business is a dirty word somewhere? "Lifestyle" business is a significantly more rational choice in comparison with VC backed startup if one considers their personal happiness and psychological wellbeing as an important metric.
I wish there was a similar level and quality of resources for what I think are called lifestyle businesses. By that, I mean product-based businesses with at most a few million in revenue, a 5ish person team, a solid sustainable market position, and no desire to revolutionize any unicorns. I know a lot of people attempting this and they mostly seem to be flying under the radar, or at least have nowhere near the cachet…
The difference, I think, is that a lifestyle business is a startup where you take your foot off the gas once your income meets your personal needs. It doesn't need to be a monopoly - in fact, it's better if it isn't, because if it is some other company will likely monopolize it. And you don't need to deal with the fundraising and hiring parts of the handbook, since you never get that big. Everything else seems to apply, though.
and more precisely, from David Packard: "More organizations die of indigestion than starvation."
I have a really hard time buying a lot of this about how novelty and monopoly are keys to a successful company. If you look at the really successful startups, especially unicorns, almost none of them are actually monopolies or new ideas. The vast, vast majority are old products done right, and almost all of them have very substantial competition. This attitude is, in fact, encompassed in the near footnote-like sectio…
Novel does not mean no competition--there's always competition, even for breakthrough technologies. Even the telephone had to compete with telegraphs or snail mail. The novelty comes in the way an existing need is met. From your list, Uber competes against taxis to transport people short distances. Airbnb competes against hotels to provide short term housing to travelers. Dropbox competed against flash drive to trans…
Same with Slack. They took the concept of IRC, which many companies use internally, and made it dead simple to set up and use.
In essence, I'd say the competition arising these days is all about UX design. Startups are taking these existing services and making them easier and smoother to use.
(This got published a little early because it got indexed. I'm still going through and fixing some typos and will maybe add a few other things.)
Can you please get the designer of this playbook and ycombinator.com to redesign HN too?
.votearrow { transform: scale(2,2); margin-right: 10px; }
I just improved usability on the site by like 100% for mobile users. In two lines of code. HN, please get on it.