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

Last.fm founders quit

blog.last.fm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#21

Post by TrevorJ »

gamache wrote: post #19
TrevorJ wrote: post #10

I don't think there should be undue stigma or speculation when founders move on. The type of person who can cast a vision that brings a company to this point isn't always (or rarely is) the same person who will thrive on the task of maintaining a company once it reaches, or nearly reaches the founder's original vision for it. There is nothing wrong with finding the most opportune moment to bow out, provided you aren'…

There's plenty of fuel for speculation in this particular case! There is the open question of whether Last.fm/CBS handed user data to the RIAA (covered at http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/ ). Fast forward a month from that article (which alleges the CBS overlords did it unilaterally, then asked Last.fm to lie about it), and all three founders are looking to cash out ASAP. Conveniently, this is th…

The first part is worthy of some speculation, I agree. However, the second is just a matter of course. It only makes sense to wait till you have fulfilled your contract obligations and can cash out. There's little wrong with that that I can see.

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#22

Post by tptacek »

gamache wrote: post #19
TrevorJ wrote: post #10

I don't think there should be undue stigma or speculation when founders move on. The type of person who can cast a vision that brings a company to this point isn't always (or rarely is) the same person who will thrive on the task of maintaining a company once it reaches, or nearly reaches the founder's original vision for it. There is nothing wrong with finding the most opportune moment to bow out, provided you aren'…

There's plenty of fuel for speculation in this particular case! There is the open question of whether Last.fm/CBS handed user data to the RIAA (covered at http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/ ). Fast forward a month from that article (which alleges the CBS overlords did it unilaterally, then asked Last.fm to lie about it), and all three founders are looking to cash out ASAP. Conveniently, this is th…

Is there really an open question about it?

There's TechCrunch with an anonymous source making a claim they've already had to walk back, and haven't posted any formal retraction of.

Then there's Last.fm and CBS categorically denying the claim, signing people's actual names to the denials.

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#23

Post by pchristensen »

ivankirigin wrote: post #14
pchristensen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't pg just say that being in a startup is like being repeatedly punched in the face, but being in a big company is like being waterboarded?

I think that was in the context of leaving a big company to start a startup. Joining a big company after your startup is acquired is a bit different dynamic. Maybe it can be likened to opium. I've never tried opium, nor sold a company. But it must feel good, with obviously bad and brewing side effects.

At least from the Inc article it was in context of working at Yahoo after getting bought.

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#24

Post by abossy »

TrevorJ wrote: post #10

I don't think there should be undue stigma or speculation when founders move on. The type of person who can cast a vision that brings a company to this point isn't always (or rarely is) the same person who will thrive on the task of maintaining a company once it reaches, or nearly reaches the founder's original vision for it. There is nothing wrong with finding the most opportune moment to bow out, provided you aren'…

There's clear evidence that a leader that founded the company with a clear guiding vision is irreplaceable. The large companies that have survived for 15+ years; Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon come to mind; are those that are most successful even upon maturity.

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#25

Post by TrevorJ »

abossy wrote: post #24
TrevorJ wrote: post #10

I don't think there should be undue stigma or speculation when founders move on. The type of person who can cast a vision that brings a company to this point isn't always (or rarely is) the same person who will thrive on the task of maintaining a company once it reaches, or nearly reaches the founder's original vision for it. There is nothing wrong with finding the most opportune moment to bow out, provided you aren'…

There's clear evidence that a leader that founded the company with a clear guiding vision is irreplaceable. The large companies that have survived for 15+ years; Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon come to mind; are those that are most successful even upon maturity.

You are probably pretty much correct, but at the same time if it was that cut-and-dried then the contracts would stipulate tenure a lot longer than 2 years for founders when a startup gets bought out.

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#27

Post by abossy »

TrevorJ wrote: post #25
abossy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's clear evidence that a leader that founded the company with a clear guiding vision is irreplaceable. The large companies that have survived for 15+ years; Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon come to mind; are those that are most successful even upon maturity.

You are probably pretty much correct, but at the same time if it was that cut-and-dried then the contracts would stipulate tenure a lot longer than 2 years for founders when a startup gets bought out.

Notice that the examples I gave aren't companies that have been bought out; they're still being led by their founders. The problem is that less and less companies are having IPOs and reaching massive size to carry out their original vision properly. Instead, their liquidation option is acquisition, which keeps the CEOs of big, rich companies in power and lets them carry out the visions of acquirees the way they see fit -- which usually isn't the optimal solution.

A founder is much more suited to carry out his or her vision by having millions of dollars in the bank and no constraints, rather than be constrained by the acquiring company in a system that is bloated and become increasingly bureaucratic.

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#28

Post by prewett »

abossy wrote: post #24
TrevorJ wrote: post #10

I don't think there should be undue stigma or speculation when founders move on. The type of person who can cast a vision that brings a company to this point isn't always (or rarely is) the same person who will thrive on the task of maintaining a company once it reaches, or nearly reaches the founder's original vision for it. There is nothing wrong with finding the most opportune moment to bow out, provided you aren'…

There's clear evidence that a leader that founded the company with a clear guiding vision is irreplaceable. The large companies that have survived for 15+ years; Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon come to mind; are those that are most successful even upon maturity.

I agree that you need a leader with clear vision. In my opinion, the definition of a leader is "someone who has a clear vision". I don't think it needs to be the founder, though. In fact, one of the jobs of a leader is to train a successor (I think "Good to Great" mentions this).

Empirically, though, vision seems to be a scarce commodity, so having the founder stay on for a long time is a good approach.

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#29

Post by ori_b »

TrevorJ wrote: post #25
abossy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's clear evidence that a leader that founded the company with a clear guiding vision is irreplaceable. The large companies that have survived for 15+ years; Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon come to mind; are those that are most successful even upon maturity.

You are probably pretty much correct, but at the same time if it was that cut-and-dried then the contracts would stipulate tenure a lot longer than 2 years for founders when a startup gets bought out.

The companies that survived to follow through on their original vision tend not to have gotten bought out and absorbed into a megacorp.

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#30

Post by jack7890 »

axod wrote: post #7

2 years seems a good average length to endure big-corp life. Wonder if there's some more data on this somewhere.

Would be nearly impossible to analyze because so much is dependent on (private) vesting terms
Post reply on HN