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

Don't Talk to Corp Dev (2015)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 127 posts

Re: Don't Talk to Corp Dev (2015)

#91

Post by nimbix »

duxup wrote: post #42

>If they can, corp dev people like to turn the tables on you. They like to get you to the point where you're trying to convince them to buy instead of them trying to convince you to sell. I worked for an established company (not a startup) and had a run in with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart managed to buy some stuff at an ultra low discount because ... someone thought maybe if we get in there we could sell tons to their IT team…

The company I worked for had a pretty much identical experience with Unilever: they aggressively reduced the scope of the contract, but expected all the extras anyway; then at the end of the contract made the company choose between getting paid for all the overages, or extending the contract. They never even really needed us if you ask me; we were primarily used as a tool for one group of execs trying to one-up another group who was backing a competitor. Eventually it all lead to us having to integrate with that competing company... until said competitor suddnly went out of business (helped by their Unilever deal, no doubt). Of course the management's objective was keeping them as a client at any cost because having them as a reference would open up so many opportunities (it didn't really).

It will come as a surprise to many people, but it's quite possible to lose a ton of money on a toxic client who is paying you millions. Avoid such "white elephant" clients at any cost. And really, the last thing you need in your life is getting dragged into some huge conglomerate's internal politics.

I never worked with Singapore Airlines, but people who have experience with them tell me they're even worse in the sense that they allegedly have a policy of not paying for software - you get to give them free stuff in exchange for being able to list them as a client. Huge software companies can afford to do that; your growth stage startup probably can't.

Re: Don't Talk to Corp Dev (2015)

#92

Post by devtul »

everybodyknows wrote: post #90
hpcjoe wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived situation. Large co bought one of our systems, as their internally built systems weren't up to the task. We sold it at effectively break even. This was in part due to my business partner's view that we could turn this into a bigger deal. Well, no. We couldn't. The "customer" wanted specifically to see how we did what we did, in order to copy this. It took me a while to figure it out, but I did, and we woun…

>Patents won't stop this. Can you elaborate? Is this because they'll infringe anyway, then use their big legal budget to game the system?

My guess is basically yes. Once they copy your small startup features and you go bust, what is really left to do? Spend an inordinate amount of time and money that you might not have chasing some compensation? How feasible is that.

Re: Don't Talk to Corp Dev (2015)

#93

Post by gnicholas »

Spooky23 wrote: post #88
gnicholas wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most NDAs do include prohibitions on either disclosure of information or use of information (for any purpose other than the contemplated transaction). But some big SV companies refuse to include the second prong, which means they won’t tell anyone your secrets but are free to use them to squash you. Intel’s NDA is notorious for this.

Those types try this with big entities too. It’s pretty amusing to watch the attorneys kill each other.

In my opinion (as a startup founder and former lawyer), it's actually less unreasonable when two BigCos leave out the non-use provision. It's not like one FAANG is going to somehow get the scoop on the other FAANG, since they're both big and the one providing the information presumably has a head-start already.

It's much more of a concern for a small company that could be wiped out by a BigCo that decides to enter their market with a wealth of intelligence gained under NDA.

Re: Don't Talk to Corp Dev (2015)

#94

Post by LgWoodenBadger »

gambiting wrote: post #86
tcgv wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually sent him a cold e-mail in Nov/2020 on that matter to which he promptly replied (in less than 1h) that his site "just doesn't have https". So he's aware of that. IMHO it'd be a small effort for improving his readers experience (and security).

I'm genuinely curious - how? On both of these points. It's just a simple text page, why would this ever need https at all?

How do you know what you read is actually what pg wrote?

Re: Don't Talk to Corp Dev (2015)

#95

Post by pyuser583 »

devtul wrote: post #92
everybodyknows wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Patents won't stop this. Can you elaborate? Is this because they'll infringe anyway, then use their big legal budget to game the system?

My guess is basically yes. Once they copy your small startup features and you go bust, what is really left to do? Spend an inordinate amount of time and money that you might not have chasing some compensation? How feasible is that.

Small companies that go bust have their assets acquired. That includes patents.

Corporate parent trolls eat them up and sue.

There are publicly traded companies whose sole means of profit is patent law suits.

Re: Don't Talk to Corp Dev (2015)

#96

Post by pyuser583 »

prirun wrote: post #83
irrational wrote: post #30

>"What happened to Don't be Evil?" I asked. "I don't think corp dev got the memo," he replied. Why is it that every company that starts with good intentions eventually succumbs and becomes that which they claimed to not like?

There's a good documentary about this called "The Corporation". It compares a corporation to a psychopath or sociopath. Corporations don't have ethics and morals - people do. But people in groups also don't have morals or ethics because being in the group allows them to not take responsibility for their actions, ie, "the group decided", not "I decided".

That just hasn’t been my experience. Most industries have a sense of right and wrong. That sense is certainly informed by market dynamics, but it’s still there.

It’s also often propagated by big players who are thinking long term. In practice it tends to favors insiders over disrupters.

Think Facebook suddenly caring about consumer privacy.

But that doesn’t mean it’s fake. Many people at Facebook honestly do care about consumer privacy.

Re: Don't Talk to Corp Dev (2015)

#97

Post by yashap »

nimbix wrote: post #91
duxup wrote: post #42

>If they can, corp dev people like to turn the tables on you. They like to get you to the point where you're trying to convince them to buy instead of them trying to convince you to sell. I worked for an established company (not a startup) and had a run in with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart managed to buy some stuff at an ultra low discount because ... someone thought maybe if we get in there we could sell tons to their IT team…

The company I worked for had a pretty much identical experience with Unilever: they aggressively reduced the scope of the contract, but expected all the extras anyway; then at the end of the contract made the company choose between getting paid for all the overages, or extending the contract. They never even really needed us if you ask me; we were primarily used as a tool for one group of execs trying to one-up anoth…

Hah, a past SaaS “big startup/small enterprise” company I worked for also had Unilever as a customer, and they were also arguably our worst, most toxic customer. Constantly draining the time of everyone they interacted with. Managed to convince our execs to build a number of custom features just for them, that we spent a huge amount of time on, and they never used them (nor did our other customers).

Re: Don't Talk to Corp Dev (2015)

#98

Post by hinkley »

duxup wrote: post #42

>If they can, corp dev people like to turn the tables on you. They like to get you to the point where you're trying to convince them to buy instead of them trying to convince you to sell. I worked for an established company (not a startup) and had a run in with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart managed to buy some stuff at an ultra low discount because ... someone thought maybe if we get in there we could sell tons to their IT team…

From the other side of this, if a company has been charging you $20 for something, why are you suddenly going to pay $100 for three times as much?

Working for places that are trying to do what your company was trying to do is how people get burnout. Congrats on the external perspective. Most places don’t get that lucky. Sunk cost fallacy and all.

Stay with the companies that are your size, until you’re big enough to land the big fish. Then charge them the same as you charged everybody else. If you lock the biggest fish in at an unsustainable rate, how do you intend to make up the difference on volume?

Re: Don't Talk to Corp Dev (2015)

#99

Post by tcgv »

gambiting wrote: post #86
tcgv wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually sent him a cold e-mail in Nov/2020 on that matter to which he promptly replied (in less than 1h) that his site "just doesn't have https". So he's aware of that. IMHO it'd be a small effort for improving his readers experience (and security).

I'm genuinely curious - how? On both of these points. It's just a simple text page, why would this ever need https at all?

Two things, first readers wouldn't receive that browser security warning (which is a bad experience) and second the transmitted content wouldn't be vulnerable to manipulation (such as ISPs injecting adds or attackers trying to deceive you).

Re: Don't Talk to Corp Dev (2015)

#100

Post by jbjohns »

vb6sp6 wrote: post #49
duxup wrote: post #42

>If they can, corp dev people like to turn the tables on you. They like to get you to the point where you're trying to convince them to buy instead of them trying to convince you to sell. I worked for an established company (not a startup) and had a run in with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart managed to buy some stuff at an ultra low discount because ... someone thought maybe if we get in there we could sell tons to their IT team…

Sometimes it isn't about the "big sale" but having the big company on your list of customers. It can give your company a lot of credibility.

Except Wal-Mart generally would not allow their name to be listed as a user of the product either.
Post reply on HN