Earlier quoted context omitted.
The crazy thing is that you hear people talking about how they've "started a company" when they haven't figured out how to make their new operation do the primary thing a company does, which is MAKE MONEY. If you're not making money, you're not a company. You're a collection of people that might be a company, someday.
You are flat out wrong. Not every tech product/company/idea comes together in a weekend, a month or even a year. Companies doing new science can go for years, and even decades, without even having a product, let alone clients or revenue.
Steve Jobs' memo to startups
121–130 of 133 posts
Re: Steve Jobs' memo to startups
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
We started it to sell. We were not interested in online stores. Some of the problems were kind of interesting, but neither I nor Robert nor Trevor thought of Viaweb as our life's work. Incidentally, building a business to sell doesn't mean it can't be sustainable. Viaweb made Yahoo lots of money.
You attacked that sort of thinking a couple of times at Startup School events. In certain ways, it was troublesome, because I like to think that's the sort of person I am, or the business that I want to start. But now hearing you say again (paraphrase) "we did it this way, and we liked some of the problems, but really we thought it was just a great opportunity" is promising. Is what you're trying to say, that the 'be…
Re: Steve Jobs' memo to startups
#123Re: Steve Jobs' memo to startups
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another example would be Elon Musk who would still be doing Zip2 instead of giving the world PayPal, SpaceX or Tesla Motors.
This is a good point, but begs the question, why is it necessary to start a new company (and depart the previous one) to pursue these ventures? I'm sure I'm just oblivious to some legal, financial, etc. benefit of building separate company "entities" for each project but personally I prefer the idea of starting the next General Electric than a string of noun-deprived orphan companies. Keeping your name associated wit…
Re: Steve Jobs' memo to startups
#125Re: Steve Jobs' memo to startups
#126Re: Steve Jobs' memo to startups
#127The thing is, NOT every project, not every product, not every service can be grown into a full blown company. It just doesn't work that way. Go to any store and look at all the bottles of shampoo you can choose from, all those brands belong mainly to 1 or 2 companies, Unilever and Johnson. Same with food products. If every little shirt, and every brand of crackers where its own company with it's own marking, and distribution, and it's own packaging plant, it's own lawyers, it's own administration offices, it's own headquarters... We'd be paying triple for everything. (although we would have a lot more jobs... correction, the Chinese would have a lot more jobs...)
Some products just can't be monetized to support themselves so they MUST be acquired by a company that can integrate them into its own profitable services (or product line) and compete better with other competitors doing the same.
If nobody flipped it would screw over entrepreneurs by forcing them to commit themselves to one industry, one company, one product line their whole lives instead of being able to create companies, sell them, repeat. Thereby going in and out of numerous industries and markets instead of just one.
Can you really see every product becoming its own corporation? On the other hand, companies like Google and facebook (who's only difference from competitors were features) grew into their own massive companies. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Starting a company, growing it, and optimizing it are three different things. Very rarely are there people who are good at all three. Jobs is one of them, Zuckerberg another, but they're lottery stories. Their advice may not work for the majority of people.
- My 2 cents.
Re: Steve Jobs' memo to startups
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good point, but begs the question, why is it necessary to start a new company (and depart the previous one) to pursue these ventures? I'm sure I'm just oblivious to some legal, financial, etc. benefit of building separate company "entities" for each project but personally I prefer the idea of starting the next General Electric than a string of noun-deprived orphan companies. Keeping your name associated wit…
I think it's possible to do this with one company. A good counter example to Elon Musk would be Richard Branson: he did music, mobile service, airlines, and space travel.
Re: Steve Jobs' memo to startups
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was also a great debate between PG and DHH (of Rails fame) on what defines a "startup," as well as some philosophical tangents on what made one successful. It was a really good discussion. This quote reminded me of that thread, but I'll be darned if I can find it now.
I guess you meant this thread - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=173000
Re: Steve Jobs' memo to startups
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another example would be Elon Musk who would still be doing Zip2 instead of giving the world PayPal, SpaceX or Tesla Motors.
This is a good point, but begs the question, why is it necessary to start a new company (and depart the previous one) to pursue these ventures? I'm sure I'm just oblivious to some legal, financial, etc. benefit of building separate company "entities" for each project but personally I prefer the idea of starting the next General Electric than a string of noun-deprived orphan companies. Keeping your name associated wit…