Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ClusterHQ is shutting down

clusterhq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 230 posts

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#121

Post by mark212 »

hoodoof wrote: post #95
schmichael wrote: post #90

If we're going to celebrate failure can we at least fail with respect, humility, and maybe even a tiny bit of class? The word "sorry" does not appear in this post. Instead of apologizing to investors, users, and employees for letting all of them down the CEO writes a contentless self-aggrandizing post. The CEO also doesn't bother to thank anyone despite being literally and metaphorically indebted to investors, users,…

Unless an investor additionally gave a loan, there is no debt owed in any way to investors - that's the point, they made a decision to invest at risk and presumably did due diligence based on accurate information.

comment says "metaphoric" debt. Surely you can agree that the principals of a company owe (in the sense of being socially obligated) a debt of thanks and gratitude to investors for taking a risk on them in the first place?

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#123

Post by jcoffland »

karthikb wrote: post #80
jcoffland wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it take you 3-4x longer to launch? Running your own servers in the cloud is not that hard. You can actually save time by not being restricted by the PaaS. I.e. if you have special needs, and you will, you can go in and hack the software.

If you don't have special needs, then you as a small team or company are taking on a burden that is large enough in scope for an entire company to focus on. It's why most startups just use GMail instead rolling their own. Sure it's easy to set up an email server, but now it's one more thing to think about.

GMail is a bad example. If GMail were to close you could just move to another email server.

Besides, using a PaaS is not free and I don't mean in terms of money.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#124

Post by hoodoof »

mark212 wrote: post #121
hoodoof wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless an investor additionally gave a loan, there is no debt owed in any way to investors - that's the point, they made a decision to invest at risk and presumably did due diligence based on accurate information.

comment says "metaphoric" debt. Surely you can agree that the principals of a company owe (in the sense of being socially obligated) a debt of thanks and gratitude to investors for taking a risk on them in the first place?

No.

The relationship is wrong if you feel indebted to your investors and like they deserve thanks. They are partners in the business.

Presumably the CEO did all they could to succeed and behaved in an ethical and honorable manner. If they did so, then investors have been well served.

I will agree however that anyone who ever chooses to do business with you in any context deserves thanks. On that basis, thanks is deserved.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#125

Post by ryao »

hoodoof wrote: post #47
Johnny555 wrote: post #32

It seems a little odd to do this 3 days before Christmas. Holiday depression is already a real problem, and making people unemployed a few days before the holiday sounds like a bad thing. And it's a terrible time to be job hunting. Why not hold on a few more weeks, let employees enjoy the holidays and announce in mid-January when employees can actually talk to hiring managers and get some good job prospects instead o…

Because a day in business costs money. If the company is out of money then you shut it down regardless of anything at all. Running for a single day longer only makes the problem worse and presumably spends money that does not exist - someone needs to pay the money the employees earn. Keeping people feeling nice isn't how to run a business that is at the endpoint of its lifecycle.

I understand that the investors have agreed to pay all former employees severance pay. I am one of those former employees. That helped somewhat.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#126

Post by BinaryIdiot »

Nacraile wrote: post #74
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're beating on a straw man. How so? If you're stating that you're going to greatly enjoy your failure, how is that not making failure seem good? Can you greatly enjoy something that you don't consider awesome (greatly being the keyword)? Seems like we could split hairs over this in a variety of different ways. On the other hand the rest of your post discusses the value created out of a failed company which wasn'…

> On the other hand the rest of your post discusses the value created out of a failed company which wasn't related to the context of my post. "not relevant"? The entire point of my response was to point out that the fundamental flaw in your argument is that you are ignoring the wider effects of the business process, while the "failure is success" mentality is all about taking into consideration those same wider effec…

> You don't enjoy the failure, but you can still enjoy the process that happens to lead to the failure, and the net outcome can still be positive.

But like I said you're adding your own words / perspective to the post. None of this was said nor implied hence:

>> I think we're going to be arguing in straw man circles

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#127

Post by ryao »

Johnny555 wrote: post #32

It seems a little odd to do this 3 days before Christmas. Holiday depression is already a real problem, and making people unemployed a few days before the holiday sounds like a bad thing. And it's a terrible time to be job hunting. Why not hold on a few more weeks, let employees enjoy the holidays and announce in mid-January when employees can actually talk to hiring managers and get some good job prospects instead o…

It was 4 days before Christmas. We were all let go yesterday. The announcement was written sometime between then and now.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#128

Post by tlb »

caminante wrote: post #114
martincmartin wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The founder of FedEx once saved the company by taking its last $5,000 and turning it into $32,000 by gambling in Las Vegas.

Careful. There's so much BS in that guy's myth story. [0] [0] http://www.snopes.com/business/origins/fedex.asp

Yes, but the essence is true: at some point they had to scrape together enough cash to buy the day's jet fuel or it would have been all over.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#129

Post by BinaryIdiot »

vacri wrote: post #77
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're beating on a straw man. How so? If you're stating that you're going to greatly enjoy your failure, how is that not making failure seem good? Can you greatly enjoy something that you don't consider awesome (greatly being the keyword)? Seems like we could split hairs over this in a variety of different ways. On the other hand the rest of your post discusses the value created out of a failed company which wasn'…

> If you're stating that you're going to greatly enjoy your failure 'Relish' in this context doesn't mean 'greatly enjoy', as in entertainment. It means simply 'to significantly value', as in valuing the learning opportunity, but not necessarily the event itself.

> It means simply 'to significantly value'

Er, not trying to be pedantic but I can't find this definition anywhere. Is that an informal use? I only see references to the condiment or similar to 'greatly enjoy'.

Might be one of those cases where using more specific wording would have helped the blog entry.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#130

Post by jdoliner »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #105
hoodoof wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless an investor additionally gave a loan, there is no debt owed in any way to investors - that's the point, they made a decision to invest at risk and presumably did due diligence based on accurate information.

Errr, wait what? Firstly, to say there's no debt, monetary or otherwise, to someone who believed in your company enough to hand over their own money (or money in their control) to back you is just pure arrogance. Secondly, there absolutely is debt. When a company goes into administration the assets are sold to pay out those who hold equity in the company. They're literally owed debt. EDIT : To clarify for those respo…

No matter how many times you say that this situation is "literally the definition of debt" you're still not going to the legal definition of debt so that it applies here. Equity is not debt, they do both until eventually owing another entity money. But in a legal sense that is not literally the definition of debt, because it is also part of equity which again isn't debt.

From a practical perspective the difference is that with equity you accept a lower floor (you might get nothing) in exchange for a higher ceiling (your invest might 100x if the company goes public). That's the deal these investors signed up for and unfortunately for them they got option number 1. They're not owed anything because that's the deal they agreed to.

Post reply on HN