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

The Next Generation Bends Over

37signals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 216 posts

Re: The Next Generation Bends Over

#11

Post by jasonfried »

iamelgringo wrote: post #7

Is it me, or is 37 signals being disingenuous. They rail against people who take VC money. At the same time they take money from an investment firm. They they say that their taking money was okay because they wanted the advice of the investor: http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/bezos_expeditions_invests... Other people taking money to get access to investor advice is bad and a disease. They rant against startups that…

We say don't take money up front. Money up front is the sin: You're entering into a financial arrangement when you have no leverage. It's the worst possible time to do business.

Re: Eyeballs... Our problem with action for eyeballs is when you have nothing to sell the brains behind the eyeballs. Just building an audience with nothing to sell (beyond ads) is what we rail against. But building an audience that could also be your customers is something we encourage.

Re: The Next Generation Bends Over

#12

Post by buugs »

fogus wrote: post #4

I can't speak for Mint, but not everyone is interested in creating a revolution.

Yeah but it is counter-intuitive to open a business with the intent on being bought or anything along those lines.

This just feeds big companies and will likely cause innovation to happen slowly through common user perspectives and reduce competitive businesses.

Re: The Next Generation Bends Over

#13

Post by natrius »

I find the Jefferson quote toward the end rather ironic. Jefferson and his compatriots were fond of explaining why anything was worth trading for freedom, yet the author is suggesting that the Mint founders should've passed on the guaranteed "freedom" the acquisition money provides for some trite devotion to slaying Goliath.

If you want change, make your own change. It's no one else's responsibility. Even if it were, the founders are now better positioned to execute on any idea they have in the future with few limitations. How shortsighted.

Re: The Next Generation Bends Over

#14

Post by jasonfried »

fallentimes wrote: post #6

Please. $170 million is "fuck you" money. Aaron and I'm guessing many of the top founders/executives made enough money to never ever have to work again. Fake revolutions are cute and all, but think of how awesome it would be to never ever have to work for the man again. They can do anything they want...for profit, not for profit, TBD (Y Combinator). This wasn't some BS talent acquisition; this was an absolute shitloa…

"Fuck You money" is such a myth. More on this soon in another post.

Re: The Next Generation Bends Over

#15

Post by fallentimes »

jasonfried wrote: post #14
fallentimes wrote: post #6

Please. $170 million is "fuck you" money. Aaron and I'm guessing many of the top founders/executives made enough money to never ever have to work again. Fake revolutions are cute and all, but think of how awesome it would be to never ever have to work for the man again. They can do anything they want...for profit, not for profit, TBD (Y Combinator). This wasn't some BS talent acquisition; this was an absolute shitloa…

"Fuck You money" is such a myth. More on this soon in another post.

I look forward to it. Just remember I'm not saying they should do nothing, but rather they can work on something that doesn't need to be monetizable.

I think the post will end up being contrarian just to be contrarian. This site and YCombinator were created as a result of "fuck you" money.

Re: The Next Generation Bends Over

#16

Post by _cbsz »

jasonfried wrote: post #14
fallentimes wrote: post #6

Please. $170 million is "fuck you" money. Aaron and I'm guessing many of the top founders/executives made enough money to never ever have to work again. Fake revolutions are cute and all, but think of how awesome it would be to never ever have to work for the man again. They can do anything they want...for profit, not for profit, TBD (Y Combinator). This wasn't some BS talent acquisition; this was an absolute shitloa…

"Fuck You money" is such a myth. More on this soon in another post.

Are you claiming that money does not have diminishing marginal utility? (i.e., the famous "s-curve"; it's in AIMA but I can't find a convenient picture with Google.)

Re: The Next Generation Bends Over

#17

Post by gruseom »

I also found it strange that Mint sold so soon for so little, relative to what they would surely have grown into (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=821888). But something bothers me about the current critique.

The most common argument (by far!) that I've heard against VC funding is that VCs only care about home runs, so their interests aren't aligned with the founders', they don't care if 9/10 of their portfolio companies die, and so on. But here the criticism is just the opposite: the "VC-induced cancer that’s infecting our industry and killing off the next generation" is that VCs don't want home runs, they want early exits. Both criticisms can't be right. So, are there two distinct and incompatible schools of thought about why VCs suck? Or are there just a lot of people who are against VCs no matter what, for whatever reason is handy? My spidey sense is that there's a little of the latter at work. (FWIW, I don't have an opinion for or against VC funding in general.)

Re: The Next Generation Bends Over

#18

Post by Erf »

buugs wrote: post #12
fogus wrote: post #4

I can't speak for Mint, but not everyone is interested in creating a revolution.

Yeah but it is counter-intuitive to open a business with the intent on being bought or anything along those lines. This just feeds big companies and will likely cause innovation to happen slowly through common user perspectives and reduce competitive businesses.

Why is it counter-intuitive? If your goal is to make a lot of money, sometimes your exit strategy will be acquisition.

Re: The Next Generation Bends Over

#19

Post by zacker »

Jason's point is broader than the business deal, he's making a critique of the Silicon Valley culture. While I have the utmost respect for the capabilities of the Mint team, I agree that it's disingenuous for the community to wrap itself in the flag of "We're in this for the revolution, not the money" and then be just so damn quick to take the money.

That said, Mint seems like the exception out here. Facebook and Twitter seem to be doing a great job keeping the champagne at bay.

Post reply on HN