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

I Don't Want to Be a Founder

carolchen.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 245 posts

Re: I Don't Want to Be a Founder

#31

Post by mdorazio »

cryptoz wrote: post #2

Reacting mostly to the ending/conclusion here. I don't know about other founders, but for me, startups are basically the only vehicle for solving big problems that nobody else will/can solve. Often the reasons that (nearly) nobody else is trying to solve your exact problem are 1) it is risky/unlikely to monetize well, 2) it is hard, grueling, or boring work that may not even function right in the end, 3) might believ…

Going to disagree with you here. In many (I'll even say most) cases, being an executive or respected consultant at a large company with established resources, staff, and customers will give you significantly better opportunity to actually solve a big problem. The vast majority of startups are not, in fact, solving big problems. They are solving small problems for a small subset of people who need problems solved (usually yuppies) because those are the problems they are able to solve efficiently.

What you probably mean is that startups are good at innovating a potential solution to a big problem. But this is an entirely different thing than actually solving it at scale, and is the reason many startups end up getting bought or acquihired before they do anything of large importance.

Re: I Don't Want to Be a Founder

#32

Post by aabhay »

This article has such a strong mental bias towards the Bay Area worldview. It assumes so deeply that the two types of people in the world are VC-backed startup founders and engineers at top tier tech companies. This is so completely off. Many people (including me) decided to start bootstrapped companies that are profitable on day 1 (or soon thereafter), with richly rewarding work. Many folks literally can’t get a job because they have no marketable skills and their only solution is to create something brand new. Other folks just want to have a good story to tell about trying to change the world. It’s really in this small bubble that you can create an equivalence between tech founder and tech employee.

Re: I Don't Want to Be a Founder

#33

Post by d3nj4l »

santoshalper wrote: post #6
imprettycool wrote: post #3

Title should be: I don't want to take VC money and I don't think you do either

I do find it interesting that in spite of the fact that so few companies will ever accept VC money or go public, this model is viewed by many as the dominant or only way to start a tech business. This is in spite of the fact that Technology businesses may very well have the lowest capital requirements of any type of company in history. It was the same way in the 80s with finance. Even though most finance workers were…

> Technology businesses may very well have the lowest capital requirements of any type of company in history.

Is it? You still have the traditional expenses of sales and marketing, often higher because they're aiming to acquire users at scale. Instead of putting down tons of capital on factories, you have to pay through the nose for quality devs + office space in areas where quality devs tend to congregate.

Besides, capital requirements may be low, but we've seen technology pay massive returns due to its ability to scale so well, so I don't think anybody minds paying a bit more because the expected return is much higher.

Re: I Don't Want to Be a Founder

#34

Post by fermienrico »

kipply wrote: post #5
imprettycool wrote: post #3

Title should be: I don't want to take VC money and I don't think you do either

I am this close to changing it, this is very good

I like how according to Silicon Valley, a "Founder" is a person that has borrowed capital from VCs. I live in Silicon Valley and there are more businesses here that are not backed by VCs than otherwise. Tens of thousands of small businesses who work as hard as the top dogs sucking up to VCs, yet they're just businesses with owners, not "Startups" with "Founders". Some people still call Dropbox, Airbnb and Uber as "Startups". I am a little annoyed by this just like I am annoyed by buzzwords of today - AI, crypto (bonus points if you throw in the term - supply-chain), and of course, the new kid on the block - "Quantum".

Do you guys not see this and introspect once in a while?

Re: I Don't Want to Be a Founder

#35

Post by mdorazio »

Not really mentioned by the author, but my own experience is that you need to strongly consider the 80/20 rule for founders. If you start a business, you will spend 80% of your time doing the business things you don't want to do, and only 20% of your time doing the things you enjoy.

What this means in practice is that if you want to start a company because, for example, you just want to build products without dealing with manager/team bullshit, you are going to have an awful time. You need to be very honest with yourself about your ability and dedication to do all the things that actually get a business off the ground, not just the things you want to do and imagine you'll spend all your time doing.

Re: I Don't Want to Be a Founder

#36

Post by rmason »

You may not wish to be a founder if you believe the only way to succeed is to chase venture capital.

If you value freedom over becoming a billionaire there's an alternative and that's bootstrapping. Plus your odds jump from under 10% to as much as 50%. If you don't quickly reach product-market-fit it's a short journey. Sometimes having that pressure early brings clarity to the mind.

Re: I Don't Want to Be a Founder

#37

Post by imprettycool »

jaxn wrote: post #28
kipply wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yah my feelings about running a startup are completely different for bootstrapped/hacked up companies (I think that's the term?)

The downsides are still there it takes the same level of commitment, dedication, and obsessive effort to bootstrap. It has taken me 5 years to bootstrap a niche b2b saas to $1m ARR. It is both awesome and terrible.

It doesn't have to be stressful or full-commitment. I'm cool with $50k ARR.

Re: I Don't Want to Be a Founder

#38

Post by georgewsinger »

> A lot of people claim that startups are less money, but I find for signicant number of founders, that's not true -- not because they'll definitely have a good exit, but because they're skilled in ways that allow them to raise enough money to pay themselves like they would at a big company. If that applies to you, then going to a startup probably is your best shot at getting rich! For other people, the expected value of industry (particularly joining a well-founded early-stage startup) is usually higher.

I've never heard this before. Raising enough VC money to pay yourself a corporate salary (i.e. 6-figure or beyond) sounds like fraudulent use of VC money?

Re: I Don't Want to Be a Founder

#39

Post by Mave83 »

I successful founded startups since 20 years, starting in the age of 16. In none of them, I founded together with partners that I realy trusted like I trust my wife. However we worked together on a professional level and figured it out everytime.

Why could we do that? because in the end it is a work for roughly 5y and if you stop even thinking about working 24x7x365 you have enough free time for recreational activities. I'm on vacation around 6 times a year, but available to the company on critical stuff.

Yes sometimes it's hard, sometimes you have so much work that even 24 hours a day wont be enough, but then again you need to focus on the important work and think about yourself.

Btw I only did the bootstrap way with every company founded on 25k€ and no VC/Angle/Bank/External money and very low income in the first years (I hire people ASAP). As of today, in average over the last 20y this gave me more then 500k€ yearly salary with the exit money. Not bad and definitive much better than I would have had in in any Employment.

For me it is absolutely no choice to be employed or working in larger companies. I want my own freedom :)

Re: I Don't Want to Be a Founder

#40

Post by kipply »

aabhay wrote: post #32

This article has such a strong mental bias towards the Bay Area worldview. It assumes so deeply that the two types of people in the world are VC-backed startup founders and engineers at top tier tech companies. This is so completely off. Many people (including me) decided to start bootstrapped companies that are profitable on day 1 (or soon thereafter), with richly rewarding work. Many folks literally can’t get a job…

This is correct (am author), bad oversight. Opinions were only applicable towards the scope you described
Post reply on HN