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

Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 169 posts

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#121

Post by goatherders »

rexreed wrote: post #114
goatherders wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No evidence this is "usually" true. It is sometimes true. It is also sometimes true that the acquired company thrives.

The deadpool of acquired companies runs very, very deep. While it might not necessarily be true of 50%+ of companies that are acquired go into the deadpool, it's common enough that an acquisition of a company's product that you use should cause you at least to make sure you have some sort of strategy to deal with a potential deadpool situation. Maybe it's not a guaranteed probability, but it is indeed very likely.

Sure. Agree completely. However it's worth noting that the customer-centric view, while valid, is rarely a good one. Companies are acquired b/c they are about to go out of business, because the IP is good, because the team is good, because the customer list is good, etc. Pissing off early customers is often the cost of growing the thing to its fullest potential.

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#122

Post by ineedasername »

dasil003 wrote: post #107
ineedasername wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but we're talking about probability here. Established enterprise products from large companies usually have a published roadmap and guaranteed support period years in advance. It may be a mediocre product, but a business knows Oracle isn't going to kill off their ERP system any time soon, and also knows the minimum sunset date for all versions and can plan updates & upgrades accordingly.

If Oracle ERP is your standard it might be hard to get anything modern. Thought experiment, for which product are you more confident about its longevity: Google Voice or Basecamp?

I'm just using Oracle ERP as an easy example. It's a spectrum though, Oracle ERP just happens to be on the far end of one side, while a (Though even more established Google products that are not Search/Ads still never make it far past the middle)

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#123

Post by [deleted] »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #102
vlovich123 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those high salaries though arguably just allow people to build nest eggs to go the startup route whenever they want. The real challenge is that, rationally, startups an extremely large gamble on a lottery where your expected value is As an anecdote, I have a friend who was working at a startup that got acquired by Google recently (he’s a Staff SWE so he’s making really good salary). He noted if he had just stayed at…

By the time they have the nest egg, it's too late to launch a startup without hiring people who FAANG are competing for.

[deleted]

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#124

Post by NineStarPoint »

rexreed wrote: post #89
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know lots of founders will read this, please for the good of humanity stop being acquired. I know the money is so alluring, but how much is your soul worth and will that money make you happy? The future of humanity depends on tech people making tiny principled stands like this over and over. Don’t believe the lies spewing out from the acquiring company. Nothing will ever be the same again and your product will be e…

While I totally agree with this comment, especially from experience knowing that the reality of an acquisition is far from the rosy picture promised to everyone, the truth is that founders and especially investors are motivated by the exit. Some founders start their companies to be flipped. Some start with the intention of going for the long-game but find the reality of competing in the market exhausting and emotiona…

Related, does anyone think that founders believe the “rosy pictures promised to everyone”? Like you said, there’s a ton of reasons for founders to want to sell, even ignoring the existence of investors who would obviously like a payout. Founders should known better than anyone exactly what they’re agreeing to with an acquisition, but that doesn’t remove the personal benefit.

More generally, I never really hear stories of founders stopping their work at a company that isn’t after an acquisition or IPO. The alternative is the founder going “I am retiring and leaving this person in charge, but maintain my ownership of the company and will be taking 20% of the future profit in exchange for my 10 years building up this company.” Maybe it happens and we just never hear about it, but without some alternative for founders to cash out at the end it’s not surprising that selling the company off is what happens.

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#125

Post by BlueTemplar »

NineStarPoint wrote: post #120
BlueTemplar wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, companies that have billions in profit have grown too big : they can just use regulatory capture to ward off real threats. The only thing that can be done is to prevent them from getting that big (economic incentives ? limited company life ?) or to shut them down completely (which needs enough popular support for a politician to do this kind of a risky move).

Regulatory capture only works if we vote in people who let them do it. It’s not a much different issue to enforcement of rules that stop companies from getting too big or shut them down. The same thing that does or doesn’t let regulatory capture happen also stands in the way of any other government attempt to control the companies.

I've noticed that regulatory capture by lobbies generally happens as a long-term process. Public opinion quickly gets tired/bored of a specific issue, while lobbyists never stop pushing.

On the other hand, a politician that makes one of his/her main goals to shut down (or block if not in US) the GAFAMs (or any other giant company), might be actually able to make a real and long-lasting change.

(Or the other way, to change a few of the most important laws that describe how ALL companies can function – also could be a main policy point.)

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#126

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #85
rexreed wrote: post #83

> Tip for acquirers: when a startup turns you down, consider raising your offer, because there's a good chance the outrageous price they want will later seem a bargain. There's no evidence that this is the case. Indeed, after founders are acquired their fierce competitive spirit and drive often starts to dissolve once the founders have gotten their exit and the teams run into the inevitable corporate realities that e…

I know lots of founders will read this, please for the good of humanity stop being acquired. I know the money is so alluring, but how much is your soul worth and will that money make you happy? The future of humanity depends on tech people making tiny principled stands like this over and over. Don’t believe the lies spewing out from the acquiring company. Nothing will ever be the same again and your product will be e…

What about Instagram?

Acquired at 10mn users, not really used by anyone except SF hipsters.

Now a massive juggernaut and the same size (in MAU) as Facebook was when they acquired it.

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#127

Post by [deleted] »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #85
rexreed wrote: post #83

> Tip for acquirers: when a startup turns you down, consider raising your offer, because there's a good chance the outrageous price they want will later seem a bargain. There's no evidence that this is the case. Indeed, after founders are acquired their fierce competitive spirit and drive often starts to dissolve once the founders have gotten their exit and the teams run into the inevitable corporate realities that e…

I know lots of founders will read this, please for the good of humanity stop being acquired. I know the money is so alluring, but how much is your soul worth and will that money make you happy? The future of humanity depends on tech people making tiny principled stands like this over and over. Don’t believe the lies spewing out from the acquiring company. Nothing will ever be the same again and your product will be e…

[deleted]

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#128

Post by ufmace »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #55
unnouinceput wrote: post #45

Except there is another. It's called Chinese Google also know as Alibaba. And with EU regulations coming up I suspect another one will rise in Europe as well in next decade. Just give it time, Splinternet will happen and then each country will have its own Google.

>And with EU regulations coming up I suspect another one will rise in Europe as well in next decade. lol, what?! Just because Europe loves to regulate itself to death so that the useless politicians can justify their salaries doesn't mean that will produce successful software companies. That's not how innovation works. Just look at Russia, who despite having less wealth than the EU, has managed to produce its own Goo…

I'm inclined to think that in order for another search engine to thrive, there needs to be a segregated market created by a different language. The kind that creates a culture gap that can't be bridged easily.

Ex - Google dominates the English-language web primarily. Most Europeans, esp Western Europeans, while they may have their own languages, speak enough English that they can get good results from Google, enough better than any local competitor that they can't get a foothold easily. Thus, they tend to use Google, enough to help Google get pretty good results in their own language too. Russian, though, has a ton of native speakers who speak no English. It makes more sense for them to gravitate towards a search engine where Russian is a first-class citizen, for searching the Russian web. All of the energy from the Russian-sphere thus tends to go to that engine, and Google's presence gets neglected and gets worse. Ditto Chinese, etc.

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#129

Post by socmedia99 »

minikites wrote: post #112
socmedia99 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half-truths and wishful thinking are the fuel of VC and speculative economics Paul Graham is one in 7 billion who stands out among billions of lesser educated. He’s not a savant. His biggest success is early mover in a tech enabled society. That’s not visionary, that’s following the social meme and being there at the right time. Visionary in contemporary society means coming up with the next big thing itself; unifyin…

>Billionaires are nothing more than gamblers who are propped up by monopolized politics. But if the success of a billionaire isn't entirely related to their singular genius and effort, what does that mean for me and my chances of success? It's uncomfortable to think about that so instead I'll pretend it really is only about their singular genius and effort and that means I can get there too some day. :)

Define success? If it’s material wealth from a social stand point look at the decades of math; it’s monopolized.

There’s always been a hierarchy; those lead to water are whacked into looking no where else for it.

Be pious.

Be materially rich.

Different words for chemical addiction to aligning with social memes.

We’ve seen the brain can rewrite itself to adapt to acquired handicaps. Is it so hard to believe it can’t adapt to a less industrialized pressure on time economy and still feel fulfilled?

Map/Reduce, deal with it. Ultimately 1 in 7 billion is a shared identity none of us can escape. New logistics models should not be ignored for old ones.

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#130

Post by disown »

socmedia99 wrote: post #97
rexreed wrote: post #83

> Tip for acquirers: when a startup turns you down, consider raising your offer, because there's a good chance the outrageous price they want will later seem a bargain. There's no evidence that this is the case. Indeed, after founders are acquired their fierce competitive spirit and drive often starts to dissolve once the founders have gotten their exit and the teams run into the inevitable corporate realities that e…

Half-truths and wishful thinking are the fuel of VC and speculative economics Paul Graham is one in 7 billion who stands out among billions of lesser educated. He’s not a savant. His biggest success is early mover in a tech enabled society. That’s not visionary, that’s following the social meme and being there at the right time. Visionary in contemporary society means coming up with the next big thing itself; unifyin…

> Billionaires are nothing more than gamblers who are propped up by monopolized politics.

Also monopolized capital. Lots of people understood the prospects of the "internet" market. The question is who has access to capital and political protection.

Amazon could have been shut down when the dotcom bubble burst like so many other companies. How were they able to maintain funding/capital for nearly 20 years without making a profit? Amazon could have been shut down in the 90s if they were forced to collect taxes. How were they able to ward off paying taxes for so long? Why was amazon afford such capital/political shelter?

It's a matter of markets and who gets a share of the markets. Historically, it was people with connections. The right school, right family, right race, right nationality, etc. Now I'd say who has connections to capital though school, family, race, nationality, etc plays a role.

Post reply on HN