11–20 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lyft, Spotify, Snap, SpaceX, to name a few.
SpaceX is not a traditional VC funded tech/ software business. Snapchat has a negative P/E ratio. In other words they are hemorraging money. I can't speak as much to Spotify and Lyft, but I don't remember them being very profitable either. Or at least profitable enough to warrant their valuations.
In addition to the fine, the SEC notes that the founder lost $65 million dollars as a result the drop in price and compensating early investors for that drop.
It's interesting that I can't think of any of these megagrowth tech startups that have gone off without a hitch. Zenefits, Uber, Snapchat, etc. are all in some form of trouble or another, and yet these companies are supposed to be the shining success stories that all other tech startups aspire to.
Success is about achievement far in excess of the average. When a change is massive, it usually hurts someone. Sometimes things that seem really positive, like facebook helping kids stay in touch, contain massive negatives, like amplifying polarization in society.
That's why we need to evaluate these things with more nuance. Just because Google's search engine is a massive boon to internet users doesn't mean none of their businesses should ever be regulated. Just because Uber's culture is misogynist doesn't mean taxi licensing is great policy.
And if you succeed in doing something massive, remember that it isn't permanently good, and doesn't make you permanently good.
It's interesting that I can't think of any of these megagrowth tech startups that have gone off without a hitch. Zenefits, Uber, Snapchat, etc. are all in some form of trouble or another, and yet these companies are supposed to be the shining success stories that all other tech startups aspire to.
That being said, when you get that big, of course there's problems. You have targets on your back, you're managing thousands of people, etc. Especially if you're entering into a market with regulations... someone is going to fight back.
It's interesting that I can't think of any of these megagrowth tech startups that have gone off without a hitch. Zenefits, Uber, Snapchat, etc. are all in some form of trouble or another, and yet these companies are supposed to be the shining success stories that all other tech startups aspire to.
4. Naughtiness
Though the most successful founders are usually good people, they tend to have a piratical gleam in their eye. They're not Goody Two-Shoes type good. Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not about observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word naughty rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter. This quality may be redundant though; it may be implied by imagination.
Sam Altman of Loopt is one of the most successful alumni, so we asked him what question we could put on the Y Combinator application that would help us discover more people like him. He said to ask about a time when they'd hacked something to their advantage—hacked in the sense of beating the system, not breaking into computers. It has become one of the questions we pay most attention to when judging applications.
It's interesting that I can't think of any of these megagrowth tech startups that have gone off without a hitch. Zenefits, Uber, Snapchat, etc. are all in some form of trouble or another, and yet these companies are supposed to be the shining success stories that all other tech startups aspire to.
...yet these companies are supposed to be the shining success stories that all other tech startups aspire to. reply A lot of people in this world, as you can see on most threads on this site, define "good" as "financially successful,” and care only about getting a piece of the action. In that regard, it doesn't matter if it's legal, quasi-legal, a shitty scam or any permutation (see ICO's) if you see yourself as smar…
It's interesting that I can't think of any of these megagrowth tech startups that have gone off without a hitch. Zenefits, Uber, Snapchat, etc. are all in some form of trouble or another, and yet these companies are supposed to be the shining success stories that all other tech startups aspire to.
If we were to look at only the lack of negative outcomes, a "company" that has 14 users that like the service would be a greater success than, e.g. Facebook, which isn't really how we use the "success" in conversation.
It's interesting that I can't think of any of these megagrowth tech startups that have gone off without a hitch. Zenefits, Uber, Snapchat, etc. are all in some form of trouble or another, and yet these companies are supposed to be the shining success stories that all other tech startups aspire to.
It doesn't help that VCs actively promote and foster founders who behave in ways that would get themselves in trouble. I guess in the case of Zenefits misleading investors is a rule that doesn't "matter". 4. Naughtiness Though the most successful founders are usually good people, they tend to have a piratical gleam in their eye. They're not Goody Two-Shoes type good. Morally, they care about getting the big questions…
And the googlepleasehire.me[1][2] guy was their VP Marketing through this ordeal. So maybe google does make some good hiring decisions after all[3].
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2011/08/03/google-please-hire-matthew...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2840233
[3] https://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/google-fails-to-hire-the-g...
It's interesting that I can't think of any of these megagrowth tech startups that have gone off without a hitch. Zenefits, Uber, Snapchat, etc. are all in some form of trouble or another, and yet these companies are supposed to be the shining success stories that all other tech startups aspire to.
How about Slack ($5bn) and Stripe ($9bn)? That being said, when you get that big, of course there's problems. You have targets on your back, you're managing thousands of people, etc. Especially if you're entering into a market with regulations... someone is going to fight back.
This looks like a clear case of fraud. lying to investors and regulators. That isn't a "growth problem" from having a target on your back, its a legal/cultural/approach issue that probably existed from the start and grew large enough to bite you in the ass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...yet these companies are supposed to be the shining success stories that all other tech startups aspire to. reply A lot of people in this world, as you can see on most threads on this site, define "good" as "financially successful,” and care only about getting a piece of the action. In that regard, it doesn't matter if it's legal, quasi-legal, a shitty scam or any permutation (see ICO's) if you see yourself as smar…
I don't think that's really the case here, HN doesn't seem to have many kind words for the makers of sham ICOs. How you get rich matters - if it's from making a huge business that's generally helpful, people admire you much more.
Peter Thiel. The Bushes. Bill Gates. George Soros. Warren Buffett. IBM. Bayer.