Live data from Hacker News

Last.fm founders quit

blog.last.fm

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#31
post #13

7 years is a long time to have spent working on a single company.

That's why you should start something that you really believe in. :) Start-ups aren't a get-rich-quick scheme -- it just happens that the market desperately needs some product or good that leads a select few company to explosive growth, which the media then focuses on.

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#32

I wonder if they are essentially saying "since our stock is finished vesting over the last 2 years..." They might have wanted to leave for some time. edit: It's really close to the exact 2 year mark http://www.crunchbase.com/company/last-fm

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?

ha! where'd he say that? I'd like to see that in context. :)

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#33
post #9

In an open world, http://libre.fm shows promise.

guys? what did I say? Was this so off-topic? I was only suggesting an alternative...

It's getting a bit trite that every time Last.fm is mentioned (in good or bad light) that someone mentions libre.fm.

Don't get me wrong, it's a nice project, but it's as annoying as constantly plugging your startups alternative to a popular service, the fact it's open-source doesn't dull that.

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#35
post #32

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?

ha! where'd he say that? I'd like to see that in context. :)

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=646861

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#36
post #2

I am not normally a conspiracy theorist, but the first thing that crossed my mind was the whole crappy drama with techcrunch. Have the founders discovered that there was a data leak - and, given their opinions on the matter - decided it better to quit than work with whoever made it happen? I hope not (edit: because I was rooting for last.fm, not because I want it to be true).

all 3 founders leave at the same time, only two years after being acquired? there is more to this than simply leaving to do other things. founders of sites like last.fm don't just let their babies go so easily, acquisition or not (think myspace, facebook, bebo, etc.) I would say that it is connected to the RIAA drama and CBS sending them user info. If they resigned because of that, then full props to them (they just…

so if I end up being right about it being related to the RIAA data, do I get voted back up?

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

guys? what did I say? Was this so off-topic? I was only suggesting an alternative...

It's getting a bit trite that every time Last.fm is mentioned (in good or bad light) that someone mentions libre.fm. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice project, but it's as annoying as constantly plugging your startups alternative to a popular service, the fact it's open-source doesn't dull that.

thanks! I didn't know libre.fm was so well-known around here.

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#38
post #24
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.

Cisco is a counter-example. Also both Microsoft and Apple lost 1 of their 2 founders.

Re: Last.fm founders quit

#39
post #24
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.

There's lots of evidence that the best leader usually is the founder. For example, Henry Ford made his company possibly the biggest and best auto-company in the world (especially at the time) because he had a vision and the vision was to make vehicles cheap enough that anyone could have one. He paid workers the equivalent of $105 dollars an hour and sold vehicle the equivalent of $7,000 by the time the Model T was retired.

He was then forced to switch to the annual model that other companies were doing, which is currently credited with severely damaging the car industry due to the severe lack of brand cohesion. At the time, everybody knew the Model T was a very sturdy vehicle, but today you've got to rely on a models previous generations. Now car companies are considering Henry Ford's original model, instead of releasing a new model every year, you release a new model say every decade so that it gets progressively cheaper and more reliable. People with less money will buy a reliable model later in the cycle when it's cheaper, where as people with large disposable incomes will quickly switch to the new expensive version, which is evidenced by the iPod phenomena.

I have mechanics in my family, in fact my father owned his own shop at one point, and when you hear people discuss vehicles they invariably end up saying things like "The 92-95 were good cars, but the 96-97 were disasters". Apple wouldn't have turned the iPod into such a needless necessity by having bad models; the iPod Nano 1G was at serious threat of this with the whole easy screen breaking because they reduced the surface coating too much, however after a bit of a rough start the Nano is now of the same standard as the classic, you don't have to worry about the screen breaking (even though I think they still have to ship with a case because of the EU's 5 year lifetime law for electronic products).

The whole founders leaving the company appears to be a Web 2.0 invention. Creators now can get enough buzz about an idea for someone to pick it up and run with it. However, back even twenty years ago if you failed so did your company. IIRC Henry Ford had two failed automotive companies before he started the current company, I believe he also had a third which he used to get majority control of the current company from the shareholders; I believe his second company was a partnership with the Dodge Brothers. The Dodge Brothers Company was sold almost 5 years after their death, by their widows, and it was the biggest monetary transaction in the world, at the time. If Henry Ford had had the buzz around the mass production of the automobile, I doubt his first company would have gone out of business, however I doubt he would have had the knowledge and experience to run the business himself, famously without a single accountant during his lifetime and IIRC the longest period for a large company in the US to not be audited for taxes.

Post reply on HN