Live data from Hacker News

Why you should, and shouldn’t, join a startup

atrium.co

31–40 of 129 posts

Re: Why you should, and shouldn’t, join a startup

#31
There's an important implied point that isn't really talked about in this article: the points about learning in startups are mostly only true if you are a founder or an early employee. The definition of "early" depends on the eventual size of the company.

If you are employee #10 and the company grows to 500, you will have learned a ton from the journey. But if you are employee #100, likely not much actually changes for you, and if you join as employee #500, you likely won't learn much from the journey to 1000, if your company makes it to 1000.

After spending a bunch of years in startup land without seeing great success, I still learned a ton as a founder/early employee though, and I absolutely don't regret doing it. However, I've concluded that if you're looking at opportunities to be a mid-late employee, either make sure you're paid well for it, or go to a big company.

Re: Why you should, and shouldn’t, join a startup

#32
One thing that seems to be very common in startups is nepotism. People often start companies with their friends and family. This leads to the company having a built-in clique. If you are an "off-the-street" hire, meaning someone who came in because they submitted a resume and not because they knew someone, expect that you're going to be second-guessed while the original people are going to love each other's ideas.

Re: Why you should, and shouldn’t, join a startup

#33
post #20
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This article was completely unnecessary because everyone should know by now what a startup entails, and that it is fundamentally unstable, but that doesn't mean it's not important as a venture and concept. Strong disagree. Living in San Francisco I often hear the phrase “I work at a small startup, we have just 100 employees” That is significantly different than what you describe which is more of a 5 to 20 people st…

> I work at a small startup, we have just 100 employees Is that even a startup anymore? To me, any company of that size is just a normal company, not a startup.

A lot of these are still taking venture money and require it to exist. They're usually not profitable or have very low amounts of profit (such a low amount that it wouldn't allow them to chase high growth). Only way for the business to sustain would be to axe a lot of staff but then they wouldn't be able to improve their product. (Thus they'd get outdated and overtaken by the competition eventually) So they're still startups because they're looking for that hockey stick growth, don't have a sustainable business model (one that doesn't require consistent innovation), and require VC money to keep going.

Plenty of startups here in the bay with well over 100 employees.

Re: Why you should, and shouldn’t, join a startup

#34
post #28

I think it's interesting that the major point is that you will learn a lot, but he also says that you should not expect to be mentored or given any real direction. This is definitely my experience, but it doesn't mean that startups teach you these things, it means that you have to teach yourself these things and you are in an environment where you are forced to do it. You can also do this and keep your day job if you…

True, but then you have a job AND have to work on the side project. Working at a startup is a bit like going to university, while working a regular day job is like going to school. You have to find out what needs to be done by yourself, nobody cares if you succeed anymore.

Based on my experience that's a good thing. Many startups don't care about work/life balance so you are expected to work so many hours you get burned out.

If you work with Big Corp and do a side project then you can take a break from the side project if you are feeling burned out and you have a lot more stability.

Re: Why you should, and shouldn’t, join a startup

#35

The problem with startups has always been a fundamental one, and not really one you can change without redefining what a startup actually is - people try way too hard to start them. Let me explain; it's reported very very often on YC that 90% of startups fail, and while a lot of these points in the article are disguised as separate ideas, they're all part of the same problem being that people want to make something f…

In non-tech industries big companies actually have a lot of trouble innovating, or driving resources and infrastructure to new initiatives. Startups exist to overcome this lack of maneuverability at big companies. Often the entrepreneurs are seasoned execs from these big companies who can't realize their vision under big company constraints Biopharma is a perfect example. It represents over 20% of venture funding. Mo…

An incumbent's return will be weighed down by lost share from their legacy business. Colloquially known as the innovators dilemma.

Even if they overcome it they will still have lower returns than a startup who steals 100% of their market share from incumbents.

Re: Why you should, and shouldn’t, join a startup

#36
post #32

One thing that seems to be very common in startups is nepotism. People often start companies with their friends and family. This leads to the company having a built-in clique. If you are an "off-the-street" hire, meaning someone who came in because they submitted a resume and not because they knew someone, expect that you're going to be second-guessed while the original people are going to love each other's ideas.

True of larger companies as well. Managers bring in friends and ex coworkers and form power cliques.

Re: Why you should, and shouldn’t, join a startup

#37
> ...because they just wanted to work on interesting frontier projects...

This is the exact reason I have exclusively sought out startups in the past. But quite frankly the Bay Area is simply to expensive to do that anymore.

I deeply miss that life and still tinker with side projects. But if that city can not solve it's cost of living crisis, there will continue to be a smaller and smaller pool of people that can afford the startup life.

Re: Why you should, and shouldn’t, join a startup

#38

> ...because they just wanted to work on interesting frontier projects... This is the exact reason I have exclusively sought out startups in the past. But quite frankly the Bay Area is simply to expensive to do that anymore. I deeply miss that life and still tinker with side projects. But if that city can not solve it's cost of living crisis, there will continue to be a smaller and smaller pool of people that can aff…

This is a big problem with the Bay Area! I often wonder if I need to move for a few years to get something started elsewhere.

Re: Why you should, and shouldn’t, join a startup

#39

> ...because they just wanted to work on interesting frontier projects... This is the exact reason I have exclusively sought out startups in the past. But quite frankly the Bay Area is simply to expensive to do that anymore. I deeply miss that life and still tinker with side projects. But if that city can not solve it's cost of living crisis, there will continue to be a smaller and smaller pool of people that can aff…

This is a big problem with the Bay Area! I often wonder if I need to move for a few years to get something started elsewhere.

Also I had a question on this very topic if anyone has any insight: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17744930

Re: Why you should, and shouldn’t, join a startup

#40
I hope I won't bore people if I repeat a point that I've made before: far more startups die of suicide than homicide. The tendency to self-sabotage, among entrepreneurs, is surprisingly strong. And I’m hardly the only one who has noticed this odd fact. The great business guru Peter Drucker made the point repeatedly. In his 1985 book Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Drucker includes a long chapter on the tendency of entrepreneurs to destroy the innovation they’d created.

For those interested, I've written about this elsewhere:

-----------------------------

We might hope that those in leadership positions possess strength and resilience, but vanity and fragile egos have sabotaged many of the businesses that I’ve worked with. Defeat is always a possibility, and not everyone finds healthy ways to deal with the stress.

Each person matters. Established firms will have a bureaucracy that can ensure some stability, even when an eccentric individual is in a leadership position, but when a company consists of just two or three people, and one of them reacts neurotically to challenges, the company is doomed.

From 2002 to 2008 I worked with an entrepreneur who had inherited a few million dollars when he was twenty-five. He admired musicians and considered the music industry glamorous, so he built a sound studio. It never made money. The bands that stopped by were broke. Those few who came up with a hit song mostly signed with a major label which, typically, had its own recording studio.

I met him in 2002 when his focus was shifting to the Web. I had developed some software that allowed people to create weblogs. Typepad, which fostered something similar to what I’d built, had just raised $23 million in funding. Surely we could do the same?

Our difficulties were self-imposed. We might go like maniacs on some project for four months, and when we were on the brink of unveiling it to the public, he would grow bored with it and move on to something else. The first time this happened, and I asked him his reasons, he improvised some arguments that sounded plausible; there were already too many startups doing the same thing. But this pattern, where he walked away from a project just when we were ready to introduce it to the public, repeated itself.

What led to this self-sabotage? As I met his whole family over the years I got to see the sad dynamics that ate at him. A modest business success would not be enough, in fact, it would leave him embarrassed. Only the creation of something as big as Google would suffice. But to grow that big, we would first need to be small, and that was the step he had no patience for.

As the years went by and he burned away all the money he’d inherited, the stress wrecked him. His self-image became increasingly grandiose. He told people that he was a visionary, someone who was able to tell what the future would look like. Late at night he would smoke weed and read articles on Slashdot and TechCrunch and then put together an amalgam of words that seemed full of the bright hopes of humanity, which he offered up as our marketing: “The Universe is fundamentally electromagnetic yet non-sentient, and we are sentient but only partly electromagnetic; the Internet is the ultimate harnessing of sentience to the fundamental forces of the Universe. Therefore our software will put you, our customer, in the driver’s seat of real-time conscious human evolution.” Later, when he wrote up our business plan, he put these two sentences in the executive summary. I’m not joking.

We had one modest success, in 2007. His girlfriend, a yoga instructor, suggested we build an online marketplace where yoga instructors could sell videos, as well as other health advice. This site was an immediate success. Within the first month it was profitable. We were written up in all of the major yoga magazines. It seemed obvious to me that we should use the same technology to build a series of similar sites. We could do a site devoted to cooking videos, another devoted to tennis, another devoted to golf. Indeed, just a few years later, the team behind Revolutiongolf.com did exactly what we could have done.

My business partner, however, was enraged by the success of the yoga site. He had burned through several million dollars chasing ideas that he felt were “visionary” and then his girlfriend came up with a simple idea that turned into our one true hit. To this day, it remains a popular yoga site. We could have built an empire around that site, but instead his girlfriend’s success left him bitter.

https://www.amazon.com/Destroy-Tech-Startup-Easy-Steps/dp/09...

Post reply on HN