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

61–70 of 157 posts

Re: Hire Family People

#61

Post by menloparkbum »

dhh wrote: post #15
pg wrote: post #13

Even if people with kids were more productive per hour, that's not enough in a real startup. The empirical evidence is pretty clear on that. I can't think of a successful startup whose founders didn't, in addition to being smart and determined etc, also work long hours.

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…

It is actually less risky to start a "startup" than it is to bootstrap your own business. If you are a parent, you're better off trying to grow your business with someone else's money than you are with your kids' college fund.

Re: Hire Family People

#62

Post by menloparkbum »

aswanson wrote: post #60
menloparkbum wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yahoo! became a business by accident. Apple was started by a guy who wanted to make the best personal computers, and Microsoft was started by a guy who wanted to put a computer in every home and on every desktop. In the Apple/Microsoft initial period, there were plenty of smaller competitors who wanted to slowly sell stuff to hobbyists and "expand naturally" and none of those companies exist anymore.

d Microsoft was started by a guy who wanted to put a computer in every home and on every desktop There were no desktops when Microsoft started. There was the Altair, and they started by writing a basic for it. The market was not planetary as it is now. Apple was started by a guy who wanted to make the best personal computers Woz was making computers for himself and to show off at homebrew. From his own words, the App…

I'd love to be able to know exactly what Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were thinking when they started their respective companies, but I'm pretty sure they had bigger designs than what you're suggesting.

Re: Hire Family People

#63

Post by aswanson »

menloparkbum wrote: post #62
aswanson wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

d Microsoft was started by a guy who wanted to put a computer in every home and on every desktop There were no desktops when Microsoft started. There was the Altair, and they started by writing a basic for it. The market was not planetary as it is now. Apple was started by a guy who wanted to make the best personal computers Woz was making computers for himself and to show off at homebrew. From his own words, the App…

I'd love to be able to know exactly what Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were thinking when they started their respective companies, but I'm pretty sure they had bigger designs than what you're suggesting.

You're probably right, as my psychic abilities and time travel skills have been failing of late...I can't imagine any rational business owner not wanting as much money and market share as possible. I know I do.

Re: Hire Family People

#64

Post by menloparkbum »

In the startups I've worked for, the best systems administrators were guys with 5-10 year old kids.

Experience actually counts for more in systems administration, so being older isn't a disadvantage. Surviving the infant-toddler years hones one's skills at managing interrupt-driven tasks and strange working hours.

Re: Hire Family People

#65

Post by tptacek »

r7000 wrote: post #25
pg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually there wasn't anything in DHH's talk that I really disagreed with, except the use of the word "startup" for the kind of company he was describing. There's already a word for companies like Italian restaurants: businesses. A startup is a very specific kind of business: one that starts small but could grow very large. Only a fraction of the 30 million businesses in the US are startups. I think what made people…

A company that starts small but grows very large could describe exactly the 'Italian Restaurant' sort of startup. On the web you have a much bigger neighbourhood than any Italian restaurant. The limitation on a landscaping company, for example, is its ability to scale and the geographic area it can serve.

I think Graham's analogy is more apt that he realizes. Here's where it takes us:

Yes, the majority of breakout chains/startups are started as chains/startups.

But, plenty of breakout businesses aren't built to scale out fast. Starbucks didn't break out for over a decade. Microsoft didn't get the DOS contract until '81.

Meanwhile, lots of small businesses are small deliberately. Thomas Keller isn't franchising Per Se. Grant Achatz isn't franchising Alinea.

So what does it tell us when a company runs a single restaurant for 10 years, or refuses to take VC funding or hire ahead of revenue?

Exactly nothing.

Re: Hire Family People

#66

Post by kirubakaran »

cellis wrote: post #54

I'll admit, DHH coming into Hacker News is a breath of fresh air, even if a few of the 20-somethings here (including myself) can sniff out the psuedo-defeatist , "statistically its not possible" scent it is tinged with. I think, on the whole of things, pg isn't out to attract the type of people that want to start the types of business DHH is talking about. I think pg is set out to do the same thing VC's do (invest in…

> throw away the big dreams

AFAIK all he meant was: don't throw away your easily achievable dreams.

That is not the opposite of pg's thoughts.

Re: Hire Family People

#67

Post by menloparkbum »

tptacek wrote: post #65
r7000 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company that starts small but grows very large could describe exactly the 'Italian Restaurant' sort of startup. On the web you have a much bigger neighbourhood than any Italian restaurant. The limitation on a landscaping company, for example, is its ability to scale and the geographic area it can serve.

I think Graham's analogy is more apt that he realizes. Here's where it takes us: Yes, the majority of breakout chains/startups are started as chains/startups. But, plenty of breakout businesses aren't built to scale out fast. Starbucks didn't break out for over a decade. Microsoft didn't get the DOS contract until '81. Meanwhile, lots of small businesses are small deliberately. Thomas Keller isn't franchising Per Se.…

Celebrity chef restaurants are not really businesses - they are more like old-school arts patronages. They are started with funding by rich finance guys who are looking for a hobby project to make themselves feel cooler. The only people who go there are also uber rich finance guys, other people in the celebrity class, and the occasional not-as-rich foodie. As soon as the rich people and celebrities get bored with the restaurant, it shuts down.

Alinea was funded by 8 futures traders who each put in half a million dollars.

Re: Hire Family People

#68

Post by abstractwater »

aditya wrote: post #56
dhh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

heh -- you did leave an open invitation for the trolls :)

Unfortunately, trolls are able to find invitations where there are none.

Re: Hire Family People

#69

Post by tptacek »

pg wrote: post #55
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…

pg has been specifically keeping the definition of "startup" narrow Argh. I haven't been doing anything to the definition of the word. I'm just using it as everyone does. Think about newspaper headlines, for example. Wouldn't you be surprised if a company described in a headline as a "startup" turned out to be a shoe repair shop, or Exxon?

Would you be surprised to see Threadless described as a startup? What was American Apparel in 1997? A small business?

Re: Hire Family People

#70

Post by hacklite »

pg wrote: post #53
aswanson wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I try just to use standard definition. A startup as most people use the word means a comparatively small, comparatively young company that is designed to grow very big. Most but not all such companies create technology, because technology scales so well. Basically, the difference between a small business and a startup is like the difference between a shrub and a redwood seedling. The metaphor isn't perfect, because o…

> A startup as most people use the word means a comparatively small, comparatively young company that is designed to grow very big.

How many YC companies fit this definition? I thought the goal was to make the founders rich, which so far hasn't included growing into a big company.

Amer. Heritage: A business or an undertaking that has recently begun operation: grew from a tiny start-up to a multimillion-dollar corporation.

Note that's just example usage; startup doesn't denote a design to become a big company.

Post reply on HN