111–120 of 172 posts
I would say, more like creating a sustainable long lasting company with good culture, cutting edge technologies, and people that love coming to work at the morning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you exploit your cofounder into performing a disproportionate amount of work?
I didn't exploit the cofounder, I presented them with an opportunity, they were fully aware of the situation. In fact, they were excited about the project, enjoyed the work, and often bragged about it to our friends. Beyond that, after I told him how to turn the service into a product, I turn something that without me would have had no value after they stopped into something that produced value for years without any…
Pretty sure that's why. Also the part where "I told him how to turn the service into a product" is equated with actually doing that work.
Not saying that your contributions weren't important - I wasn't there. Maybe without you getting a client there would've been no business, and maybe your cofounder is super happy with how things turned out, too. But it does read a bit like exploitation, and it definitely raises the question of what things might have looked like if you'd bothered to work as hard as it seems like your cofounder did.
Edit: Also, I think this probably touches a nerve with HN people, many of whom dream of founding their own company and are probably scared of exactly this sort of thing happening to them, but without the happy(?) ending.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but that's not really building a "startup" anymore. That's just starting a business.
No it's still a startup. It can be a very high growth startup, shooting to a $100M valuation. It's just not the wannabe unicorn that VCs want. There's a HUGE gap between what VC wants and a "lifestyle business" (I hate that term, thanks for not using it.) Redefining startup to be this very, very narrow set of "businesses that will be over $1B in valuation within 5 years" is wrong, it's silly, and it's getting worse.…
(yes, there are situations where taking investor capital leads to divergent interests between investors and managing founders. But not gross arithmetic differences.)
Obviously if the expected value of the smaller sized business is greater, you choose that one. The only time these questions (whether to take capital/shoot the moon) is when the expected value of the larger business is greater. So to refactor your example, what about 10% chance at 100, or a 1% chance at 2000? Now you have more of a real question on your hands.
Much more interesting when contemplating whether to go big or stay small is the notion that there are invariant personal "fixed costs" regardless of the size of the opportunity you're pursuing. Meaning, you can overwork yourself and burn out on a $100k/year business as surely as a 100 M/ year business. So if you are going to give something your all, just make sure the expected payoff is worth it.
I've cofounded 4 different startups. All were good ideas that bled cash or time and flopped, largely due to infighting or founder differences. One cofounder of one of the companies got really nasty about trying to leave with the rights to the company and we other two cofounders just let him have it. He sold the rights and it's now a successful venture-backed startup with soaring profits (two cofounders). Good for tha…
> We're profitable, growing, and valued at about $2.2 million. We're implementing a lot more over the course of this year and next, and I will look to exit in early 2018, once our valuation is closer to the $10 million or $20 million range If you positvely have a feature pipeline that is going to increase the value of your company ten times in less than two years, why isn't that the valuation now? Silicon Valley math…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you exploit your cofounder into performing a disproportionate amount of work?
I didn't exploit the cofounder, I presented them with an opportunity, they were fully aware of the situation. In fact, they were excited about the project, enjoyed the work, and often bragged about it to our friends. Beyond that, after I told him how to turn the service into a product, I turn something that without me would have had no value after they stopped into something that produced value for years without any…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get what you're saying, and i think the whole "you gotta work your butt off to be successful" thing is a lingering noting from workoholic culture. "How many hours you put in?" is the corporate version of "how much can you lift?" And I believe it's not exactly right; working smarter is better than just working harder. But both do entail work. Then again, isn't there some quote about inspiration and perspiration ;)
Well, here is this about Bill Gates coding 18hrs a day in his first job. http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/10/bill-gates-first-re...
Perhaps if he'd managed to skip undergraduate studies straight to graduate school as adviced he'd be wrestling with hard enough problems not to think about writing programs for the upcoming PCs of the era
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you exploit your cofounder into performing a disproportionate amount of work?
I didn't exploit the cofounder, I presented them with an opportunity, they were fully aware of the situation. In fact, they were excited about the project, enjoyed the work, and often bragged about it to our friends. Beyond that, after I told him how to turn the service into a product, I turn something that without me would have had no value after they stopped into something that produced value for years without any…
In other words, you come off as an arrogant know-it-all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you exploit your cofounder into performing a disproportionate amount of work?
I didn't exploit the cofounder, I presented them with an opportunity, they were fully aware of the situation. In fact, they were excited about the project, enjoyed the work, and often bragged about it to our friends. Beyond that, after I told him how to turn the service into a product, I turn something that without me would have had no value after they stopped into something that produced value for years without any…
You admit you did nothing... and that your cofounder did everything... but you refuse to attribute the success of the startup to your cofounder and instead attribute the success to yourself.
You have the audacity to claim that the startup would have been worthless without you, but ignore the fact it wouldn't even exist without your cofounder.
Plus you quote yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you exploit your cofounder into performing a disproportionate amount of work?
I didn't exploit the cofounder, I presented them with an opportunity, they were fully aware of the situation. In fact, they were excited about the project, enjoyed the work, and often bragged about it to our friends. Beyond that, after I told him how to turn the service into a product, I turn something that without me would have had no value after they stopped into something that produced value for years without any…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem I find (and one I've seen in a lot of cofounder groups) is that most of the people who want to start startups are visionaries. It's simpler than that. Most people just prefer slacking off to working their butts off. However it's the narcissists and sociopaths that will call their slacking off being "visionary" while the good guys either just leave or start working their butts off as everybody else. Obvi…
I'm not sure I would go that far but I have always had very mediocre experiences with people who describe themselves as "visionary"