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

What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–188 of 188 posts

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#181

Post by jaredsohn »

pg wrote: post #16
SandB0x wrote: post #4

I think people will be wondering if this resembles the founders' ideas when they were funded by you, and if this represents the kind of company you wish to be funding. You may of course defend the product on technical grounds (accept buttons, EULAs, etc) but I find it hard to believe that you truly think it is anything but a nuisance to end-users.

They're working on something new, and all the office hours I had with them were about that. They're not even in our database of companies as InstallMonetizer but as the new thing. (I'm not sure if I can say the name because it may not be launched yet.) I knew they had some previous product that was called a Windows installer, but I don't think we ever talked about what it did. The whole world of Windows software seem…

I think the right thing to do here would be to ask them to remove mention of YCombinator from their website and not use it in press mentions.

At the moment, their website states:

"We are a YCombinator company (YCW2012) and are backed by some of the most prestigious investors in the silicon valley."

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#182

Post by tatsuke95 »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #154
niggler wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you paid attention to the Murdoch issue you'd actually realize each of your facts parallel a facet of the phone hacking scandal: A) Your purported argument about scale really suggests that YC may have more investments than they can reasonably manage, but that doesn't absolve them from blame. This is EXACTLY the same argument Rupert Murdoch made (We have so many newspapers that we couldn't possibly be aware of hack…

Perhaps against my better judgement I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. You seem to be misunderstanding the situation with IM and YC; according to what PG has said so far, the IM team did not "pivot" while in YC. Again, just to be completely, perfectly, totally crystal clear: nobody at YC was aware of IM. That's not what the team applied for, and it's not what they were accepted for. YC applications…

>"YC applications do not ask for work history. You are not required to share your resume. They do not ask for references."

Honest question: why not?

Seems reasonable, even if only to protect brand image.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#183

Post by nullymcnull »

jessedhillon wrote: post #167
jiggy2011 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never really like these type of arguments. For example if I believe a doctor is acting unethically is it wrong for me to call him out because I don't have a medical license? Sure, there may be factors here we don't understand here but I think now would be an excellent time to unveil whatever grand plan they have to head off the PR shitstorm this is in the process of creating. As I have mentioned elsewhere YC have g…

For example if I believe a doctor is acting unethically is it wrong for me to call him out because I don't have a medical license? No it doesn't mean that. What it means is that you, as a non-doctor, should excercise some discretion and humility wen choosing your words. Expressing harsh condemnation and judgment when you have a small piece of the picture is an unbelievable asshole move. None of these Tough Guys throw…

who are you to question where YC invests?

A free man, in a free country, on a message forum where all are free to post their opinions?

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#184

Post by ericd »

niggler wrote: post #104
ericd wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like niggler edited his comment, but he's still saying that PG is an active proponent of this. YC companies are completely independent, and you really can't assign any blame to him for what one of YC's hundreds of portfolio companies do.

Comment was not edited. It looks like you viscerally reacted to a comment suggesting PG isn't a deity.

Ah, sorry, I thought it was edited, it seemed to read differently the second time. I was reacting to your implication that PG was somehow responsible for this, which, if you know anything about how YC operates, is obviously untrue.

Edit: Reading some of your other comments in this thread confirms that you're assuming a lot of things that aren't true to build an internal narrative and participate in this silly little drama. YC is not controlling at all, and is frequently not directly involved with guiding a company, unless the founders reach out for advice. It's a self-directed program.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#185

Post by zeropointmodule »

pg wrote: post #16
SandB0x wrote: post #4

I think people will be wondering if this resembles the founders' ideas when they were funded by you, and if this represents the kind of company you wish to be funding. You may of course defend the product on technical grounds (accept buttons, EULAs, etc) but I find it hard to believe that you truly think it is anything but a nuisance to end-users.

They're working on something new, and all the office hours I had with them were about that. They're not even in our database of companies as InstallMonetizer but as the new thing. (I'm not sure if I can say the name because it may not be launched yet.) I knew they had some previous product that was called a Windows installer, but I don't think we ever talked about what it did. The whole world of Windows software seem…

Any comparison involving "no worse" and GoDaddy does not have the intended effect...

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#187

Post by oh_sigh »

zaidf wrote: post #89
oh_sigh wrote: post #22

What about opt-in vs opt-out? Would this company be profitable if all of their toolbars were opt-in only? I'd be willing to bet a dollar that InstallMonetizer will tank if they relied on opt-in, but will make bank if they rely on opt-out.

InstallMonetizer will tank if they relied on opt-in, but will make bank if they rely on opt-out. Just like the US Postal Service if direct mailing was opt-in instead of opt-out. What's your point?

The USPS is a public service. The public service is subsidized via direct mailings. If everyone opted out of direct mailings(or if direct mailings were opt-in), the USPS would continue to operate, only they would either charge much more to deliver posts, or they would be granted more subsidies from the taxpayers.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#188

Post by bilbobaggie »

karamazov wrote: post #96
niggler wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The game is to get those people who aren't tech savvy, and PG knows and actively supports it. There literally is no way to do what IM is trying to do without somehow engaging in questionable behavior (reminiscent of Facebook in many ways)

"literally no way" is a very strong statement - do you have any proof?

relax, bro.
Post reply on HN