An acquisition is always a failure • Hacker News Board

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#101

Post by alxbrun » Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 1:48 PM UTC

randallsquared wrote: post #91

alxbrun wrote: post #17

I recently sold my company and I agree with Jake. What most commenters don't understand, in my opinion, is that real entrepreneurs don't start their company to get rich. If getting rich is your priority, become an investment banker (If you really want to code, make some automatic trading algorithms and financial models for investment bankers.) In that regard, selling your company is, very often, a failure. In my expe…

> If getting rich is your priority, become an investment banker People keep saying this, but it's a whole different category of thing than "become a programmer". You can't start with no particular skills and no education, work hard at learning for three months, and get a job as an investment banker (or, if it's possible , it's not so easy as to be a common route to investment banking, like it is for programming). Bei…

Fair enough, it was a little bit of provocation. As I said if you like maths and programming, just design trading algorithms for them !

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#102

Post by adventured » Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 2:18 PM UTC

From not seeing a headline from them in a long time, I had hoped PandoDaily was banned from HN for being so terrible.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#103

Post by mindcrime » Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 2:28 PM UTC

jasonkester wrote: post #85

mindcrime wrote: post #3

No, no, a thousand times no. This is complete bullshit. I'm sorry, but you lost me at: The proper ambition for a tech entrepreneur should be to join the ranks of the great tech companies, or, at least, to create a profitable, independent company beloved by employees, customers, and shareholders. Nobody, not you, not my mom or dad, not "God", not Linus Torvalds, not Bill Gates, not the Queen of England, not the Dali L…

Indeed. This whole article seems like it must be an elaborate HN Karma Lottery, where the first person to read the headline then post the above comment will immediately walk away with 300 points. The conclusion is so obviously false that it doesn't even require saying as much. If somebody ever offers to buy one of my businesses for a price that makes me happy, I'm going to consider that a win. And I'll let the parent…

This whole article seems like it must be an elaborate HN Karma Lottery, where the first person to read the headline then post the above comment will immediately walk away with 300 points.

LOL... it's so funny you would say that. I was thinking last night, after this comment started getting upvoted like mad, how pathetic it is that this comment, which is basically just an emotionally charged rant, gets massive upvotes, while my much better comments - the ones full of research, thoughtful commentary, links, etc., - languish with no upvotes. I mean, I stand behind the above comment 100%, and would repeat it today. But it isn't a particularly good comment. There's nothing actionable in it, and nobody learns anything new from reading it, except for "Phil thinks $BLAH". sigh

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#104

Post by mindcrime » Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 2:34 PM UTC

kybernetikos wrote: post #66

sliverstorm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say I build a company to a point where I could sell for enough that I could walk away with, I don't know, let's call it $10,000,000 USD. The other option is to stay independent and maybe, maybe eventually IPO. This is the part that rankles with me. Why is, "stay privately held and continue to turn a profit year over year" never considered an option? Why is it only "sell" or "IPO"?

I think the point of the article is that the majority of startups are founded by people who want to get rich more than they really want to be a visionary or entrepreneur. People talk about 'exit' strategies. It makes it rather obvious that the thing they've created is much less important than the money to them. Whether or not that bothers you, I think it's nice to have occasional articles talking about the view espou…

Yeah, I can sorta see that. My position is just that "it's complicated" and that no one really has the standing to tell others what their goal ought to be.

In my own case, I absolutely want to build a profitable, sustainable company that "becomes one of the tech giants" or whatever. I'm not into the "build to flip" mentality, and we have some very specific goals and values[1] driving what we're doing. But all of that said, IF we reach a point where our company has some value, and the right acquisition offer comes along, it would be damn hard to say "no" when you consider the opportunity to do things like I spoke about above: Buying my mother a new house, travelling the world, etc. And no matter which decision I might make, I reject the notion that you're a "failure" if you choose the earlier exit.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#105

Post by mbell » Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 2:34 PM UTC

epsylon wrote: post #92

mbell wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on your goal. Even companies that stay privately held and turn a profit year over year end up in many ways being a lifestyle company; Often resulting in stagnation and then slowly erode from the inside. It can work, you can avoid stagnation, but only for a few types of companies / founders. For example Valve can pull this off, they are a game company, always building the next great game, they always have s…

> Valve can pull this off, they are a game company, always building the next great game Ironically enough, Valve hasn't created a game for years. These days they are mosty a platform (Steam) company rather than a game studio.

Many modern games take a long time to produce, 3-5 years is not uncommon for AAA titles. I also wouldn't say they haven't released a game 'for years', there has been at least 1 title a year, a ton of DLC for older games, porting games to linux, etc.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#106

Post by 3pt14159 » Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 2:36 PM UTC

crapshoot101 wrote: post #70

phillmv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's not an option if you've taken VC. A VC is only looking at time frames of 3-5 years, given the limitations of their business model. If you don't look poised to grow 5-10x within that time frame then it's not worth their time, given they could be throwing money at the next potentially huge company instead. If you run out of time you might get turfed by your investors when they call in their convertible note,…

Not true. VC funds have 10 year lives, depending on the fund obviously.

This is only partially true. They have 10 years from the start of the fund, but most don't invest it all in the first year.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#107

Post by danielweber » Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 2:47 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #3

No, no, a thousand times no. This is complete bullshit. I'm sorry, but you lost me at: The proper ambition for a tech entrepreneur should be to join the ranks of the great tech companies, or, at least, to create a profitable, independent company beloved by employees, customers, and shareholders. Nobody, not you, not my mom or dad, not "God", not Linus Torvalds, not Bill Gates, not the Queen of England, not the Dali L…

I wonder what world people come from where $10,000,000 isn't worth taking. Are they sitting on a family fortune?

Also, once you have your $10,000,000 payout, then you can swing for the fences all day on your later projects. With a few million in the bank you can afford to take the bigger risks. The stress of running a start-up while you have $50 in the bank is real.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#108

Post by mindcrime » Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 2:51 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #51

mindcrime wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like HN's focus has changed in that regard. Call me crazy, but I feel like it was less "get-rich" focused a couple years ago. I dunno... considering that HN was originally "startup news" and that it's run by a company that funds / incubates startups, there's pretty much always been a certain segment of posters who are very into the financial side of things. What gets me is the people who come along and (seemin…

Absolutely nothing wrong with being rich. It's about goals. When you learn to ride a motorcycle, there is a phrase: "Look where you want to go". At least to me, it seems like when you are looking only at your exit, you might make that exit, but you won't really make much else of value along the way. In other words, when your goal is not to build a sustainable, profitable company with lasting value, but rather just to…

In other words, when your goal is not to build a sustainable, profitable company with lasting value, but rather just to get out as fast as possible with as much money as possible... just how far away is such a person from "scam artist"?

Sure, I don't disagree with any of that. I mean, wanting to have "fuck you money" does not necessarily imply that you're only interested in the exit, or that you want to "just get out as fast as possible with as much money as possible". There's some middle ground there.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#109

Post by ultramundane8 » Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 2:57 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #103

jasonkester wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. This whole article seems like it must be an elaborate HN Karma Lottery, where the first person to read the headline then post the above comment will immediately walk away with 300 points. The conclusion is so obviously false that it doesn't even require saying as much. If somebody ever offers to buy one of my businesses for a price that makes me happy, I'm going to consider that a win. And I'll let the parent…

This whole article seems like it must be an elaborate HN Karma Lottery, where the first person to read the headline then post the above comment will immediately walk away with 300 points. LOL... it's so funny you would say that. I was thinking last night, after this comment started getting upvoted like mad, how pathetic it is that this comment, which is basically just an emotionally charged rant, gets massive upvotes…

I often observe the same thing.

I consider myself the lowest of the low, and even I am disappointed by 9/10 HN posts hiding their valuable comments (they do exist) far below the first thing that I see on my web browser.

Self-indulgent comments like yours and mine should be ignored, not upvoted.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#110

Post by mindcrime » Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 2:57 PM UTC

niggler wrote: post #47

mindcrime wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take the (apparently quaint) view that you should make money because your product/service provides real value to others. And that if you do provide real value then there's a monetization pathway (by charging those people that you do provide value to). I have to admit, I don't see the connection between that and the blurb you quoted above. I certainly don't disagree with the idea of providing real value, nor with th…

I think we disagree on the extent to which "desire to become wealthy" should be a driving factor. I think the state where founders are primary driven by short-term wealth is not appropriate (it is easier to be wealthier in other areas like finance), whereas I take your comments to suggest that you think it's acceptable for making money to be the primary motivation. The views aren't mutually exclusive (timing factors,…

I think we disagree on the extent to which "desire to become wealthy" should be a driving factor. I think the state where founders are primary driven by short-term wealth is not appropriate (it is easier to be wealthier in other areas like finance), whereas I take your comments to suggest that you think it's acceptable for making money to be the primary motivation.

Aah, gotcha. Well, we may not disagree that much after all. I am not saying that "desire to be wealthy" should be a big driving factor, I'm just OK with the idea that it might be. And, more to the point, going back to my original comment that prompted all this, I'm saying that it's OK to "take the money" (that is, take an acquisition) if you need a large sum of money, at a point-in-time, and that's the best route to get it. The reasons you might want to do that are very varied, personal and subjective, and I don't think any of us have the right to judge somebody who makes that decision.

As far as what I find "acceptable", you should understand... I'm a libertarian who finds everything "acceptable" as long as it doesn't involve initiation of force or fraud. But finding something "acceptable" is not the same thing as finding it "desirable" or "good". And since I have no standing to judge someone else's decisions, it doesn't really matter what I think about their motivations, goals, desires, etc.