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

I once killed a $125M deal by being “too honest”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 137 posts

Re: I once killed a $125M deal by being “too honest”

#101

Post by splistud »

khazhoux wrote: post #95
refurb wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure he bombed the Steve Jobs discussion. Throwing out a higher number you believe in is not destroying the deal, that’s just Jobs being a dick. His “i can’t trust you” is pure bullshit and nothing but a negotiating tactic. Now a better approach would be to ignore Steve and negotiate with the deal team (and let them argue with Steve). But the outcome could have been the exact same.

From his recounting of it, he literally killed the deal. Steve had said "yes" and said Eddy Cue would take it from there, and was preparing to leave the meeting. Then Ali decided it would be good to start negotiating price right then and there. Steve might have really been offended by Ali bluffing the sale price he could command. Or he could have been offended that this guy was such an obvious amateur.

Steve said yes and Eddy will take it from here is not 'a deal' yet

Re: I once killed a $125M deal by being “too honest”

#102

Post by torstenvl »

coldtea wrote: post #98
torstenvl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your response is (intentionally?) incomplete. Talking about integrity... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity Definition of integrity 1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : INCORRUPTIBILITY 2 : an unimpaired condition : SOUNDNESS 3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : COMPLETENESS

My response is about integrity as it pertains to the discussion - as a property of a person. Note that (2) and (3) are not about people. We don't say that someone who is not impaired (in "an unimpaired condition") has "integrity". We call them able and other things. We don't say that someone who is "complete or undivided" has integrity either (we use the term "complete" for humans, but there it means something like s…

> Note that (2) and (3) are not about people.

False. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity

> (2) and (3) are not about integrity as in "X has integrity"

False. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity

> And you made it sound like I did something nefarious.

You did. In a discussion about whether a word's meaning was narrow or broad, you argued it was narrow by citing its definition -- but left out every part of its definition that didn't align with your argument.

Re: I once killed a $125M deal by being “too honest”

#103

Post by xeromal »

coldtea wrote: post #99
xeromal wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you could consider looking out of the people under you as mouths to feed as moral. It's impossible to calculate the moral implications of the entire world for every decision you make, but taking care of your own is a pretty easy start.

> I think you could consider looking out of the people under you as mouths to feed as moral. That's a quality a mafia boss might also have (taking care of its own team/employees/famiglia). Doesn't mean they have integrity (heck, it's not even moral - not every quality that results to the good of some people is moral).

I guess that depends on what you consider morals? Local or Universal.

Re: I once killed a $125M deal by being “too honest”

#104

Post by torstenvl »

coldtea wrote: post #100
torstenvl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone devoted to his own interests lacks charity, but not integrity. And yes, being whole and undivided is also in reference to the moral quality, not just structural integrity.

> Someone devoted to his own interests lacks charity, but not integrity. Well, I wasn't talking about some hermit fully devoted to his own self without impact on others. I was talking about someone pursing his own interests ahead of everything else - who would e.g. lie if it benefits him, steel, backstab, and so on. This man might be an "whole and undivided" jerk, but he lacks integrity - that is, an actual good mora…

I am not going to argue with you. There is a lengthy discussion of the breadth of the word in the Wikipedia article. It does not mean what you think it means. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity

There's a saying: you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. I can provide you the resources to show you the meaning of the word, but I'm not going to waste my time in any further back-and-forth. Have a good day.

Re: I once killed a $125M deal by being “too honest”

#105

Post by omegalulw »

awb wrote: post #71

Another moral to this story that I haven’t seen mentioned yet: Don’t give unsolicited advice. Not only was this advice to buy a different company not asked for, it was presented in a vague way: “They’re better than us”. If I was the CEO of Yahoo on the receiving end of that, I’d be thinking a few things: 1) You don’t know my business well enough to be giving me unsolicited advice. 2) You’re passionate about subjectiv…

> You appear to be lacking confidence by buying into this subjective thought that another team could be “better than” yours.

I feel personally attacked !!

Re: I once killed a $125M deal by being “too honest”

#106

Post by gonehome »

refurb wrote: post #89
FinanceAnon wrote: post #8

Is this the same guy who recently posted about trying to bluff Steve Jobs, getting called out on it and losing a deal? I wonder how many more stories like these he has lol Edit: found the link for those interested https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28826437

I’m not sure he bombed the Steve Jobs discussion. Throwing out a higher number you believe in is not destroying the deal, that’s just Jobs being a dick. His “i can’t trust you” is pure bullshit and nothing but a negotiating tactic. Now a better approach would be to ignore Steve and negotiate with the deal team (and let them argue with Steve). But the outcome could have been the exact same.

He bombed - he should have stopped once he had the Yes from Steve.

Negotiation can happen later.

Re: I once killed a $125M deal by being “too honest”

#107

Post by prewett »

khazhoux wrote: post #97
bmitc wrote: post #80

I know we're on a forum associated with a startup accelerator, but something just rubs me wrong on these waxing poetic startup stories. It's like these people live in their own little world, where companies and little "ideas" and massive sums of money are just pawns in some game that ultimately doesn't matter. It's a sort of entrepreneurial aggrandizement, and there's a lot of unnecessary adulation and cult of person…

Ha, I noticed this part in the twitter thread: > Yahoo offered $125 million > As a financially-insecure immigrant, I knew this deal would change my life. I enjoyed how he specifically qualified that this was a lot of money for a "financially-insecure immigrant." Um... no. This is a lot of money for 99.999% of human beings on the planet. A good read though.

Another interpretation is "[because] I was a financially-insecure immigrant, I knew this deal would change my life [by clearly achieving the financial security I had been constantly worrying about and seeking to get][and therefore I was nervous that the deal might not happen]". It's not that the amount of money was larger for him than other people, but that having $125m/n founders was so clearly financially secure.

Re: I once killed a $125M deal by being “too honest”

#108

Post by jiveturkey »

ouch. I want to bask in the schadenfreude and the superiority complex over this noob, but I cannot. The way he relates the story is deceptively endearing. I like this guy and would work for him, even knowing that he so deftly killed his own companies in the past.

I mean, taking him at his letter.

It is all a lie though.

Re: I once killed a $125M deal by being “too honest”

#109

Post by blacktriangle »

admissionsguy wrote: post #44
brk wrote: post #7

In sales there is a term "know when to stop selling", this story is kind of a variant of that. If you have acceptable terms worked out, stop "selling", stop trying to show or add more value to the deal. Close the deal you have, and then work on any new or additional things.

It’s something I’ve been always struggling to accept. Be it sales, academic debates, court cases, or just dinner table conversations. Why does the outcome depend on the timing and specific choice of words used? Isn’t it a proof or irrationality of it all? Shouldn’t the outcome converge to the "best" one (optimal, true) the longer the process takes?

Because the timing IS information. Why was a piece of information stated up front, or last, or in the fine print, or released to the public on friday at 5pm, etc.

We're not evaluating an arbitrary collection of facts, we're evaluating a flow (ie time varient) of information from a source of unknown trusthworthyness and as such we are looking for more information than just taking everything stated at face value.

Re: I once killed a $125M deal by being “too honest”

#110

Post by khazhoux »

splistud wrote: post #101
khazhoux wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From his recounting of it, he literally killed the deal. Steve had said "yes" and said Eddy Cue would take it from there, and was preparing to leave the meeting. Then Ali decided it would be good to start negotiating price right then and there. Steve might have really been offended by Ali bluffing the sale price he could command. Or he could have been offended that this guy was such an obvious amateur.

Steve said yes and Eddy will take it from here is not 'a deal' yet

Of course.

It's interesting, though, how the CEO managed to present successfully to Steve without crumbling (no mean feat!) and still didn't have the sense to understand that Steve himself would not be negotiating the deal, just giving final signoff. A bizarrely rookie move.

Just based on these two anecdotes, I get the impression this guy simply does not have a feel for the etiquette of these negotiations.

Post reply on HN