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

Hire Family People

37signals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 157 posts

Re: Hire Family People

#31

Post by dhh »

pg wrote: post #27
dhh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a pretty narrow definition of a startup. Also, there are plenty of businesses that start out small and then grow very large over time. Actually, most large businesses took a long time to get there. Say like foot locker or Zappos for a "shoe store" (both big business) and say McDonald's or Olive Garden for a restaurant. By the same measure, we're building 37signals to grow as well. Grow revenues, grow c…

I think that's a pretty narrow definition of a startup. Maybe, but I didn't invent it. It's just the definition in current use. As most people use the word, it's more specific than a business that's merely new. As most people use the word, it doesn't include barber shops, gas stations, shoe repair stores, etc. There are structural differences between that kind of company and a startup. McDonald's and Olive Garden are…

Most restaurant chains didn't start as chains, they started just as that single restaurant. Most big businesses didn't start big, they started small.

But that's again off topic. I do agree that the startup term is most frequently associated with technology companies, but you do hear about startups within a fair number of other lines of business too.

Re: Hire Family People

#32

Post by [deleted] »

dhh wrote: post #30
thaumaturgy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pg has been specifically keeping the definition of "startup" narrow, to describe only the businesses that go through the two-guys-plus-vc-plus-sleepless-nights-equals-fast-megabucks pattern that we saw in 2000. I think that's the model he's most interested in, that he sees as the most dynamic and rewarding. Shiny. That said, the things you describe closely match what I've wanted to pursue. For me, and many others, it…

I think that's a hijacking of the word that's not helpful at all. And I don't think that pg would argue that you can only call yourself a startup if you're going for VC funding and a sale or IPO. If so, there's an awful lot of tech companies that have been wrongfully labeled as startups under this narrow definition. And you'd only be able to call yourself a startup in retrospect once you saw whether you ended up bein…

[deleted]

Re: Hire Family People

#33

Post by pg »

mosburger wrote: post #23

Thank you so much, 37signals guys. I've always found pg's essays to be motivational and inspring, but there are two things that always turn me off; 1.) I don't live in San Fransisco, and probably never will, and 2.) I have a family. I often feel dismissed by PG and his disciples. DHH's stuff gives me hope that there's still a chance for "fogeys" (cripes, I'm only 33!) like me. I have a feeling that, if I ever applied…

I have a feeling that, if I ever applied to YCombinator, my application would end up in the wastebasket the moment they caught a whiff of the fact that I have a wife and kids.

We don't ask on the application form if people have kids, nor as far as I can recall have we asked anyone in an interview. The reason most of the people we fund don't have kids is simply that most of the people who apply don't have kids.

Re: Hire Family People

#34

Post by dhh »

pg wrote: post #17
dhh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the reason for that is more one of risk. Starting a new company is a lot more risky than being an employee of one. And if you have a family to support, you're less likely to be willing to take on big risk. So I absolutely agree that it's easier to start a company when you're single and have no obligations because you can tolerate much more risk. Update: Seems that the original argument changed from "if kids a…

(If this exchange is confusing to anyone, it's because dhh was replying to my comment while I was still editing it.) But in reply to the second half: while 37Signals may be a counterexample to the rule that startup founders need to work long hours to succeed, there seem to be a lot more startups that did than didn't. Different people presumably have different points at which spending more time on something makes the…

I fully agree that different businesses require different levels of input to make it work. But this crowd seems to be mostly in the "web business" area, so I think our example is at the very least relevant.

And we're saying here's an example of a web startup that didn't follow the traditional wisdom of "long hours necessary for business success", which is offered as one data point that perhaps "long hours" isn't the success requirement as some might think it is.

Similar to the talk from SUS on Gmail's invitation system. Just because Gmail used an invitation system and had success doesn't mean that using an invitation system will give you success.

(BTW, as meta comment, I'm incredibly impressed with the level of discussion here. It's so un-web like ;). Where are all the personal insults, the trolling, and all that which we've otherwise come to accept must be part of a open-for-all comment box. Very nice job!)

Re: Hire Family People

#35

Post by pg »

dhh wrote: post #31
pg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a pretty narrow definition of a startup. Maybe, but I didn't invent it. It's just the definition in current use. As most people use the word, it's more specific than a business that's merely new. As most people use the word, it doesn't include barber shops, gas stations, shoe repair stores, etc. There are structural differences between that kind of company and a startup. McDonald's and Olive Garden are…

Most restaurant chains didn't start as chains, they started just as that single restaurant. Most big businesses didn't start big, they started small. But that's again off topic. I do agree that the startup term is most frequently associated with technology companies, but you do hear about startups within a fair number of other lines of business too.

Actually most chains are started as chains. Bizarrely enough I happen to know a lot about this, because the only reading material at the Chinese restaurant near my house in Cambridge is restaurant industry trade mags.

Sometimes the chain guys will take a restaurant that's successful and turn it into a chain, but when they do this they usually keep nothing more than the name and a few recipes. McDonald's was a burger place started by the McDonald brothers, but it only became the McDonald's we know after Ray Kroc bought it and transformed it into a chain.

I agree that startups don't have to be doing technology. I don't remember saying otherwise.

Re: Hire Family People

#37

Post by jsrn »

pg wrote: post #33
mosburger wrote: post #23

Thank you so much, 37signals guys. I've always found pg's essays to be motivational and inspring, but there are two things that always turn me off; 1.) I don't live in San Fransisco, and probably never will, and 2.) I have a family. I often feel dismissed by PG and his disciples. DHH's stuff gives me hope that there's still a chance for "fogeys" (cripes, I'm only 33!) like me. I have a feeling that, if I ever applied…

I have a feeling that, if I ever applied to YCombinator, my application would end up in the wastebasket the moment they caught a whiff of the fact that I have a wife and kids. We don't ask on the application form if people have kids, nor as far as I can recall have we asked anyone in an interview. The reason most of the people we fund don't have kids is simply that most of the people who apply don't have kids.

> [...] most of the people who apply don't have kids.

how do you know if you don't ask?

Re: Hire Family People

#38

Post by menloparkbum »

dhh wrote: post #31
pg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a pretty narrow definition of a startup. Maybe, but I didn't invent it. It's just the definition in current use. As most people use the word, it's more specific than a business that's merely new. As most people use the word, it doesn't include barber shops, gas stations, shoe repair stores, etc. There are structural differences between that kind of company and a startup. McDonald's and Olive Garden are…

Most restaurant chains didn't start as chains, they started just as that single restaurant. Most big businesses didn't start big, they started small. But that's again off topic. I do agree that the startup term is most frequently associated with technology companies, but you do hear about startups within a fair number of other lines of business too.

That may have been true back when McDonald's started, but most of the chain restaurants around today were started as franchises.

Re: Hire Family People

#39

Post by dhh »

pkrumins wrote: post #36

Those 37signals people are very, very arrogant. I don't like it. I disagree on every post they have just by reading the title.

So someone is arrogant when you don't agree with them? And you don't even have to know what they're saying to make that call, you just have to read a three-word summary? What a unique path to expanding your horizon.

Re: Hire Family People

#40

Post by aswanson »

pg wrote: post #35
dhh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most restaurant chains didn't start as chains, they started just as that single restaurant. Most big businesses didn't start big, they started small. But that's again off topic. I do agree that the startup term is most frequently associated with technology companies, but you do hear about startups within a fair number of other lines of business too.

Actually most chains are started as chains. Bizarrely enough I happen to know a lot about this, because the only reading material at the Chinese restaurant near my house in Cambridge is restaurant industry trade mags. Sometimes the chain guys will take a restaurant that's successful and turn it into a chain, but when they do this they usually keep nothing more than the name and a few recipes. McDonald's was a burger…

What then, qualifies as a startup per your definition, even in the technology space? You could say that Apple, Microsoft, and Yahoo started off along the local restaurant model, selling (or providing services to) a small group of local hobbyists and expanding naturally as new opportunities presented themselves. [EDIT: In each of these businesses (except yahoo, maybe) the goal was to grow a business. I don't even know if MSFT ever took VC. They just sold product until the IPO. I doubt they saw VC or a public exit as an upfront goal. They just ran the business to the point where it was a natural progression.
Post reply on HN