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

The coffeeshop fallacy

thestartuptoolkit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 99 posts

Re: The coffeeshop fallacy

#61

Post by chc »

aloneinkyoto wrote: post #41
chc wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making a much bolder claim than the article, a very specious claim to boot (that for some reason sustainable businesses can't do good work), and you are not providing any supporting evidence for this controversial claim. You may not have meant it as a troll, but the effect is very similar The article is just saying that running an X business means you spend a lot more of your time on the "running a business"…

I didn't claim that a sustainable businesses can't do good work. I simply claimed that sustainability is at odds with producing good things. Which is a fairly different claim. Though I can see how the distinction was not perfectly clear in my comment. But to be honest I thought I was being very careful in my wording about something that should be self evident, e.g. "...will most likely not be as inherently good as it…

I don't understand your example at all. Are you saying that Apple's business model is not sustainable or that Apple doesn't make good things?

Re: The coffeeshop fallacy

#62

Post by patio11 »

pacemkr wrote: post #56
patio11 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Writing letters isn't high-prestige either, which is why lawyers don't describe their job as writing letters all day. Learn from their example.

I've been thinking about this. Saying "I'm a software developer" just doesn't communicate what I do, even though programming is... well, what I do. Thanks for reframing the problem succinctly. You thought about this, so how do you describe your profession?

Mine specifically? "I helped two million kids learn to read last year" or "Occasionally, companies fly me out to them so that I can work for a week or three and make them several million dollars. The other 40 weeks of the year I keep myself amused."

Back when I was doing software development every day, the answer was something closer to "You know X university? I make sure their entrance exams run smoothly."

For a generic software developer, "I make my employer absolute piles of money by being clever in the general vicinity of a computer."

Re: The coffeeshop fallacy

#63

Post by [deleted] »

pacemkr wrote: post #56
patio11 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Writing letters isn't high-prestige either, which is why lawyers don't describe their job as writing letters all day. Learn from their example.

I've been thinking about this. Saying "I'm a software developer" just doesn't communicate what I do, even though programming is... well, what I do. Thanks for reframing the problem succinctly. You thought about this, so how do you describe your profession?

[deleted]

Re: The coffeeshop fallacy

#64

Post by bostonvaulter2 »

phillmv wrote: post #47
jimboyoungblood wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, you will be able to own that coffee shop, but you won't want to. being their landlord is a better way to go. also, i don't think software is viewed as a "high-prestige" profession.

It's relatively easy for us to be in the top 10-5% of earners. We don't get doctor-respect, nor lawyer-money but… I'd say medium-high prestige.

Additionally I think our prestige is going to keep going up as time goes on.

Re: The coffeeshop fallacy

#65

Post by code_duck »

Insightful article.

My own experience working in restaurants teaches that one should never go work at a restaurant you love - it might ruin their food and ambiance for you permanently.

Re: The coffeeshop fallacy

#66

Post by pseudonym »

genieyclo wrote: post #22
quinndupont wrote: post #16

Since when does a coffee shop have a 10% success rate? According to a large study by the Speciality Coffee Association of America, independent coffee shops in the US have a 90% success rate. Perhaps the author mistakenly assumed coffee shops have the same market dynamics as a restaurant, but coffee is low-staff, low-overhead, and high-profit. So long as people are walking in the door, you'll do okay.

That statistic is absurd, and highly suspect coming from the "Specialty Coffee Association of America". I have run a coffeeshop and restaurant both, and can attest to the high attrition rate in coffeeshop turnover. I'd be surprised if even more than 40% of coffeeshops are still open 3 years after establishment.

I'd be willing to be the "SCAA"'s numbers are something like "Still open 3 months after founding".

Re: The coffeeshop fallacy

#67

Post by phil »

I don't think it worked this way for Levchin, either.

It's obvious that they were so excited about what they were making at PayPal. The PalmPilot thing? All that encryption stuff they did early on? They were just in love with what they were making, and it worked out very well for them.

On the other hand, Slide, a basically dispassionate attempt to build a company he thought would be successful, while still a success, didn't work out quite as well.

Re: The coffeeshop fallacy

#68

Post by wisty »

nlh wrote: post #12

Similar to the coffeeshop fallacy is something I described to a friend over dinner the other night as the "ambulance fallacy" ... He was telling me about his startup ambitions and about one particular business that he said sounded like a ton of fun (it was an alcoholic beverage business) - he loved the lifestyle potential of being "that guy". I told him a story about how I wanted to be an EMS worker when I was 12 yea…

Firemen have a similar lot. Sure, you think you get to drive a firetruck, and pull women and children out of burning buildings. But most of your calls will be extracting mangled teenagers from mangled cars.

And even if you get to go to a house fire, there's only a tiny window when you can enter the building, because modern homes are filled with plastic, which burns very quickly. And if you do enter a burning building, you'll smell like burnt plastic for the rest of the day (despite all your protective gear).

Re: The coffeeshop fallacy

#69

Post by efsavage »

pacemkr wrote: post #56
patio11 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Writing letters isn't high-prestige either, which is why lawyers don't describe their job as writing letters all day. Learn from their example.

I've been thinking about this. Saying "I'm a software developer" just doesn't communicate what I do, even though programming is... well, what I do. Thanks for reframing the problem succinctly. You thought about this, so how do you describe your profession?

patio11's answers are cute, but if you say things like that you'll probably just end up defending yourself against people's misinterpretations. "So you're a teacher?" or "You mean like a security guard?"

I think the best approach is a middle ground, rather than say what you are, or what the ultimate result is, just say what you _do_. "I build websites" or "I build iphone applications" or "I run servers and networks" is something accessible that people can comfortably take wherever they want, e.g. "what language?" or "oh, i just downloaded this cool app that ..."

Re: The coffeeshop fallacy

#70

Post by toast76 »

The coffeeshop fallacy is, in fact, a fallacy.

People don't open coffee shops to drink coffee all day any more than someone would open a bar because they want to drink all day.

My brother is a wine maker. He is insanely passionate about wine (Pinot to be precise). When he's not working he's talking about and sharing wine. But at the end of the day, he's just a farmer. He tends his vines, picks the fruit, puts in vats, waits a while and then pours it out into bottles. It's horrible, torturous, back-breaking labour for him. But he does it because he wants to put the best damned Pinot on your table.

That's why you open a coffee shop.

That's why game developers build games.

Anyone passionate about wine knows what it means to make wine, and anyone passionate about coffee knows what it takes to make coffee. The coffeeshop fallacy assumes our coffee drinker knows no shit-all about coffee.

Post reply on HN