Live data from Hacker News

ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

english.martinvarsavsky.net

71–80 of 127 posts

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit. What is crass is the perspective that Americans are unreflectingly capitalistic and pre-occupied with monetary success. Most business owners I know started their business because they saw a need for something and they wanted to deliver what was needed. Financial success is important because it allows their organization to continue functioning but it's hardly the top motivator for business owners I've spoken…

You have this thing called "The American Dream" and you have an entire cultural history tied to self-motivation, entrepreneurship and "pushing the frontier"... Clearly every single american isnt subject to the same cultural pre-occupations, that's absurd. But there are only certain cultural phenomena possible in one place or another. A right-wing party in the UK could not even begin to use any of the ideas or rhetori…

"The American Dream", self-motivation, entrepreneurship and "pushing the frontier" are all good things IMHO.

However, they aren't the same as "unreflectingly capitalistic" and "pre-occupied with monetary success".

I'm not going to address the rest of your America bashing because the response requires a nuanced answer that I don't have the time to write today. I'll leave that to others.

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of great risk for great reward is a myth. The risk that the founder of Facebook assumed for example was close to nil, because he didn't have any job or money to start with. He risked the precious time that he would otherwise use to party at some Harvard fraternity. Similarly for so many other tech founders. They just happened to do well something that they liked at the right time. There are many small busine…

You're disproving your own point. In the same paragraph, you say "The idea of great risk is a myth" and "There are many small business that represent a much bigger risk for their owners". Think about it.

The idea that I'm talking about is that the reward from a company is proportional to the risk taken. My example shows that small companies can sometimes impose a greater risk to their founders than the risk taken by the founders of Facebook or Google.

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of great risk for great reward is a myth. The risk that the founder of Facebook assumed for example was close to nil, because he didn't have any job or money to start with. He risked the precious time that he would otherwise use to party at some Harvard fraternity. Similarly for so many other tech founders. They just happened to do well something that they liked at the right time. There are many small busine…

It's only a myth if you're examining the situation from a singular angle -- that of monetary risk. There's a great deal of risk and uncertainty involved in foregoing the completion of a degree, a potentially-salaried position at a stable firm, and so forth in favor of starting a company that is statistically unlikely to succeed.

In the example I gave (Facebook), there is no indication that the founder gave up on the degree until the company had already some traction.

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#74
post #10

If you primarily rely on sources of information in English (of which I'm guilty, too) then obviously you will be mostly getting information from the Anglosphere dominated by the US because it's, oh you know, richest and most powerful country in the history of the world. This is not some "Americans cover their successes" thing. It's that they matter more. There is an underlying economic reality in which we are lagging…

" richest and most powerful country in the history of the world..." not even close http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-modern_great_powers

So many disagree with this proposition because it does not convey the meaning you apparently intend. "Most powerful" might conceivably be a relative measure, but there's no way that "richest" is. Most nations of Europe (probably not Moldova, Slovenia, and a few others), on both a total and per capita basis, consume much more than anyone on that list. In a military contest most modern European nations would by more concerned about veterinary care for the enemy's horses, than the military outcome.

Next time you intend to make a relative statement, use the word "relative". Of course, that was not what the post to which you responded was discussing, so your post would have been more obviously beside the point.

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#75
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit. What is crass is the perspective that Americans are unreflectingly capitalistic and pre-occupied with monetary success. Most business owners I know started their business because they saw a need for something and they wanted to deliver what was needed. Financial success is important because it allows their organization to continue functioning but it's hardly the top motivator for business owners I've spoken…

> Bullshit. What is crass is the perspective that Americans are unreflectingly capitalistic and pre-occupied with monetary success. Most business owners I know started their business because they saw a need for something and they wanted to deliver what was needed. Well, most of the business people I know of, only see a need in areas that they thing are profitable. How many try to actual affect people's lives in subst…

> Well, most of the business people I know of, only see a need in areas that they thing are profitable

Yes and people only live in areas where they have a way to get food, air and water. A business can't function without profits. Naturally, a business owner will spend their energy on addressing needs through a model that can sustain itself.

Others may choose to go the non-profit route and try to sustain themselves through grants/subsidies/benefactors/etc. There are 1.5 million non-profits in the US [1].

One way or another, the organization has to sustain itself.

[1] http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/faqs/html/howmany.htm...

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#76
This has very little to do with national moods/prejudices and much more to do with boring/atypical industries vs. hot consumer ones. ONO got no attention largely because it's "boring" to a mass audience. There are plenty of examples of this domestically, e.g.

+ Child focused ecommerce company Zulily filed a $2.6B IPO, but got very little attention.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6740927

I'd also note that there are blinders even within the startup community. I've submitted plenty of stories about under-the-radar startups that die on the vine because the companies are more focused on execution that cultivating a PR rep that would earn media and upvotes.

+ Wayfair, a bootstrapped ecommerce company raised $165MM in its "Series A" and barely got a notice here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3625381

+ Here's another example of HN blindness: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3625381

+ Nearly a quarter of the top 20 projects on Kickstarter are board games—can you remember the last story you read about one? A couple have raised more than Oculus Rift or Formlabs, but get no attention because they're "boring," while these hardware cos earn magazine covers and lavish praise.

+ Mailchimp is easily a $100MM+ in revenue company that was bootstrapped, but they're rarely profiled.

The reality is the tech news reported by most of the big names is just the most "exciting" tip of the iceberg. There are plenty of worthy stories that just won't generate page views and hence don't get the attention they "deserve," if coverage was apportioned by success measured in dollars or reach rather than pageviews.

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#77

Europeans arent as unreflectingly captialistic and "frontier"sy. Americans have always seen success in business as an crowning achievement. Europeans have traditionally found this kind of pre-occupation with monetary success somewhat crass or trivial. > Europeans don’t realize that if a company that went from nothing to connecting 7 million homes is not celebrated... That's total BS. You dont need a culture of fanati…

Bullshit. What is crass is the perspective that Americans are unreflectingly capitalistic and pre-occupied with monetary success. Most business owners I know started their business because they saw a need for something and they wanted to deliver what was needed. Financial success is important because it allows their organization to continue functioning but it's hardly the top motivator for business owners I've spoken…

[deleted]

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#78

Europeans arent as unreflectingly captialistic and "frontier"sy. Americans have always seen success in business as an crowning achievement. Europeans have traditionally found this kind of pre-occupation with monetary success somewhat crass or trivial. > Europeans don’t realize that if a company that went from nothing to connecting 7 million homes is not celebrated... That's total BS. You dont need a culture of fanati…

Bullshit. What is crass is the perspective that Americans are unreflectingly capitalistic and pre-occupied with monetary success. Most business owners I know started their business because they saw a need for something and they wanted to deliver what was needed. Financial success is important because it allows their organization to continue functioning but it's hardly the top motivator for business owners I've spoken…

> Most business owners I know started their business because they saw a need for something and they wanted to deliver what was needed. Financial success is important because it allows their organization to continue functioning but it's hardly the top motivator for business owners I've spoken with.

I disagree. Capitalism is used in political rhetoric in the US, more than it is in (mainland) Europe.

I don't think that this statement can be compared with "terrible teeth" or "French smell", because those things are globally seen as bad, while having a strong pride of financial success is neither in Europe nor in the US seen as bad per se. I think financial success is simply used as a universal measure of success in the US, because capitalism as a philosophical, social and political thing had it's strongest development in the US and UK.

Another thing that added to this is Marx criticism. Now, I don't talk about political communism, but the criticisms that liberals and capitalists tend to agree with, while the broad society (by that I mean people who simply never studied economy or philosophy), but know that communism emerged from this criticism of capitalism don't want to be associated with it. The meaning of socialism and communism vary a lot depending on the country you live in. That is because in the US it sometimes nearly synonymous to "enemy dictatorship", these the term the term might in Europe be used for a totalitarian system, but also as the resistance to such a thing, as in Nazi-Germany. It might be about not making everything about money, but also many other things. Every country in Europe has another history. In some you can make a communist party that even company owners would vote, while in others nobody would vote for such a party.

I think it's also not fair to make such statements about the whole US, but depending on the society you live in success always means financial success. If you live in London, maybe in a banking district this is surely more true than if you live in another part of the city or somewhere else.

With the US it is really hard, especially for Europeans the US can be a hard way to look at, because it is considered one country and since you can only hear a certain amount about it, even if you are very interested into the country. The chance that you for example hear Ron Paul saying that someone who dies because he cannot afford a surgery can be proud of supporting his country or something like that is more likely than many other things.

For many people especially in big cities, no matter where on the planet capitalism, liberalism and democracy bind together and others see socialism, liberalism and democracy as one thing, while others see that as impossible.

This was really political, but the way these terms relate can also change how you define success. But that's not all, cause there are different reasons for wanting to be financially successful. If you live in the US it might be that you just want your children to be able to go to college. So even if this is the only reason you might for someone from Europe, where you can study cheaply or even for free, look really focused on monetary success.

The difference between the states and cities in the US should really be considered in making such comments, but when people talk about another country they tend to talk about the political elite of a country and in the US it appears to be focused on financial success and parties that reject such rhetoric aren't usually considered. As a European you often don't even know that there are other parties that people are able to vote for.

Basically the reasons are about nonces. That's why Europeans think US people are super capitalist and US people tend to think Europeans are super socialist. None of these statements is true, even if I strongly agree that US people seem to take more pride in having companies making money, just like other countries take pride in making great wine or whatever.

Often such things look kinda like a religion to outsiders. You know, like capitalism where the market is your god and everyone tries to please it, but you cannot really control it and it is hard to see what the outcome is and the capitalists are like "You should not try to control it, because it knows best", basically like "Don't try to play god" and no matter who you are you are, capitalist, socialist, communist, republican or democrat, everyone thinks when your party finally wins everything will be amazing, people will finally see the truth and everyone will be living together nicely. Socialists think everyone will share everything and capitalists that everyone will be rich and only pay for good companies and it will all somehow work out, with only minor bad happenings.

I don't think it's that way and that people might be better off not caring about things like other people's definition of success, especially not when it's a generalization, but also not of individuals, because it is incredibly easy to be wrong about it. I think we should try to not lose trust that humans, as social (in biological terms), as long as they are sane generally tend to measure success also from a social perspective (see various foundations), even if they of course also are able to forget about it. And of course power corrupts that sanity, be it power through money or power through a political position. I guess that's why democracies are neither perfect nor evil.

Re: ONO sells for $9.5 billion and nobody cares

#80

Europeans arent as unreflectingly captialistic and "frontier"sy. Americans have always seen success in business as an crowning achievement. Europeans have traditionally found this kind of pre-occupation with monetary success somewhat crass or trivial. > Europeans don’t realize that if a company that went from nothing to connecting 7 million homes is not celebrated... That's total BS. You dont need a culture of fanati…

Beautiful... except it's not true. A quick google search through negocios.pt (probably the biggest Portuguese business newspaper): * Whatsapp: 41 results * Ono: 4 results Europeans love success stories as much as Americans, but we're too American-focused to notice our own success stories.

I do not say that you are not right, but I have another possible explanation, which is that US companies might be louder and/or do better marketing.

Also yes, Ono is simply less known throughout Europe. Ono as far as I know has now global marketplace, but Whatsapp does.

Post reply on HN