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

The best founders are futurists

josephwalla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 81 posts

Re: The best founders are futurists

#11

Post by michaelochurch »

In 5 years, if progress continues (and, in all things human, it might not):

1. The top software companies will be running open allocation. It won't get into the mainstream by then, and maybe not ever, because it's not practical for all industries. (You can't run OA easily in finance for regulatory reasons.) However, you'll have to pay hedge-fund money to recruit talented people into a closed-allocation company.

2. Location will be much less relevant than it is now. Right now, "Number 6 startup scene" means none at all. That's changing.

3. Google will either have been thoroughly destroyed (on a cultural front) by stack ranking, or have reinvented itself utterly in a form more like its pre-apocalyptic state.

Anyone who can turn these into startups, share your thoughts.

Re: The best founders are futurists

#12

Post by wittysense »

pdenya wrote: post #3

> I think the minimum viable product has made us so effective at thinking short term that we spend less time thinking long term. There is such a thing as a product or idea to be presented "before it's time". I wonder if there's an opposite of an MVP like a "Maximum Viable Product" - The most advanced product the market is likely to support at the moment.

I really like this point. I think there is, generally, a flaw in the thinking that because programmers are good at focus, they are good at prediction.

"Ahead of its time" may be outside of the natural means, on top of being quite possibly outside of the "epistemic network" of those thinkers assigned to the problem.

MVP eludes most, and as we become more democratic in our development practices, this scientific concept of MVP will so too become diluted. The future will likely simply be outlined by material needs. Let's say that ?

Re: The best founders are futurists

#13

Post by yid »

michaelochurch wrote: post #11

In 5 years, if progress continues (and, in all things human, it might not): 1. The top software companies will be running open allocation. It won't get into the mainstream by then, and maybe not ever, because it's not practical for all industries. (You can't run OA easily in finance for regulatory reasons.) However, you'll have to pay hedge-fund money to recruit talented people into a closed-allocation company. 2. Lo…

Can you please stop turning every thread into a diatribe against Google or pitching open allocation as a panacea to all organizational problems?

1. Your definition of open allocation seems to be "work on whatever you want". You don't need a PhD in organizational theory to know that this doesn't scale. I think what you really mean is "I want to work on whatever I want".

3. From what I can tell, you were at Google for less than a year. Your anecdotes about Google are neither representative, accurate, nor interesting anymore.

Every time you go on a rant about Google, you alienate people who, through first or secondhand information, know that what you're saying is not representative of the organization.

Please -- moderate yourself, or you'll probably end up hellbanned.

Re: The best founders are futurists

#14

Post by kailuowang »

Being able to envision the future is only a small part of being able to see the big picture, being able to see the big picture is an even smaller part of being a successful founder. But yes, I think it is a prerequisite to be a great founder.

Re: The best founders are futurists

#15

Post by jenius »

What kind of founder doesn't think this? "In the future everyone will be using this ____ that I'm making" - whether it's a virtual pet app or a new distribution of ubuntu. The problem is that just thinking this is the case is so far from meaning that it has any chance of coming true that the thought hardly helps anything.

I don't disagree with the thought, I just don't think it really carries any particular meaning.

Re: The best founders are futurists

#16

Post by glurgh »

michaelochurch wrote: post #11

In 5 years, if progress continues (and, in all things human, it might not): 1. The top software companies will be running open allocation. It won't get into the mainstream by then, and maybe not ever, because it's not practical for all industries. (You can't run OA easily in finance for regulatory reasons.) However, you'll have to pay hedge-fund money to recruit talented people into a closed-allocation company. 2. Lo…

if progress continues

you mean if there is the slightest bit of evidence for any of these. For which, while avoiding any sort of predictions about the shape of the future, there isn't.

Re: The best founders are futurists

#17

Post by boot »

digz wrote: post #7

This is a tautological claim. Of course with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that the biggest successes were those significantly changed the world... No way!? That's why they're successes! Lots, and lots of examples of people who similarly dreamed of changing the world with BIG ideas that completely failed. The bigger idea, the lower your probability of success, but with a larger potential return (both personal…

Let's sum up this article.

In order to be successful monetarily, you need to make something people want.

This guy is a savant.

Re: The best founders are futurists

#19

Post by mindcrime »

OK, that's an interesting piece. I'll take a stab at a "If you live in the future ..." statement that goes along with what we're doing at Fogbeam.

If you live in the future, computers will be more intelligent and will make it far easier and faster to find exactly the information you are looking for, will make useful predictions to guide your decision making, and will enable new management structures for organizations.

Re: The best founders are futurists

#20

Post by michaelochurch »

yid wrote: post #13
michaelochurch wrote: post #11

In 5 years, if progress continues (and, in all things human, it might not): 1. The top software companies will be running open allocation. It won't get into the mainstream by then, and maybe not ever, because it's not practical for all industries. (You can't run OA easily in finance for regulatory reasons.) However, you'll have to pay hedge-fund money to recruit talented people into a closed-allocation company. 2. Lo…

Can you please stop turning every thread into a diatribe against Google or pitching open allocation as a panacea to all organizational problems? 1. Your definition of open allocation seems to be "work on whatever you want". You don't need a PhD in organizational theory to know that this doesn't scale. I think what you really mean is " I want to work on whatever I want". 3. From what I can tell, you were at Google for…

Your definition of open allocation seems to be "work on whatever you want". You don't need a PhD in organizational theory to know that this doesn't scale. I think what you really mean is "I want to work on whatever I want".

First, open allocation doesn't mean "work on whatever you want". It means that people work for the company directly rather than having their allowable contributions restricted by an intermediary who will usually use that power for extortionist purposes and force the other person to serve his career goals (rather than the good of the company, or the employee).

Employee and company actually have a common interest that is typically thrown under the bus in a closed-allocation environment.

Second, this sure as hell isn't just about me. Open allocation has second-order cultural effects that are positive for everyone.

You don't get a good environment if one or a few people get to work on whatever they want but the rest are stuck in narrow niches.

So I actually wouldn't be attracted to a job where I got to work on whatever I wanted but everyone else lived under closed allocation.

Under closed allocation you get a culture of internal social climbing. It's no longer about doing things. It's about getting permission. You have a society founded on getting jobs rather than doing work, then.

Also, the quality of projects that exists under closed allocation is inferior because people can't vote with their feet.

open allocation as a panacea to all organizational problems ... You don't need a PhD in organizational theory to know that this doesn't scale.

Open allocation is not a panacea. Far from it. Organizational problems happen because that's how people are. However, open allocation is almost always strictly superior to the alternative, which is closed allocation.

Open allocation is the more natural state. Closed allocation is the bulky add-on that needs to be justified, and only when there are necessary information barriers whose integrity is more important than maximal productivity (this is true in secure government jobs, and in some parts of finance) is there any justification for it.

Please -- moderate yourself, or you'll probably end up hellbanned.

Is that a threat?

Post reply on HN