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

Hype and plunder: Domo a new low for self-indulgent IPOs

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 167 posts

Re: Hype and plunder: Domo a new low for self-indulgent IPOs

#131

Post by austenallred »

tntn wrote: post #105
ninkendo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many you named overspend, spread massive hype, and acquired funding with a story that doesn't match their product and its quality. Sounds a lot like SV to me?

The history is important. Silicon Valley has a history of creating undeniably valuable innovations and legitimate companies dating back 60+ years: HP, Shockley, SRI, Fairchild, Intel, Cisco, Apple, etc. This is the backdrop for Silicon Valley. In contrast, Utah Valley has a history of MLMs. This is the backdrop for Silicon Slopes.

What about Qualtrics (profitable) MX (profitable) Omniture (IPO, sold for $1.8B), and if we're digging as far back as Fairchild Utah has Novell, Wordperfect, etc.

I left Utah to come to Silicon Valley, and definitely hate MLMs more than you, but to claim that Utah is only MLMs is just silly.

Re: Hype and plunder: Domo a new low for self-indulgent IPOs

#132

Post by austenallred »

tntn wrote: post #99
aaronkchsu wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why people never mention https://instructure.com for Utah startups but I work for them and they seem great!

Again to clarify, I didn't mention them because they are based in Salt Lake. There are lots of great places in Salt Lake, but the discussion above was focused on Utah County (Provo, Orem, Lehi, etc.)

Lehi is much closer to Salt Lake City than San Francisco is to Palo Alto (or, for that matter, Cupertino is to Palo Alto). In fact, you can get from Lehi to Salt Lake City faster than you can get from San Jose to Palo Alto. If you're looking to subdivide regions by a 20 minute drive on the freeway and call one bad and the other good it's going to be a difficult argument to make.

Re: Hype and plunder: Domo a new low for self-indulgent IPOs

#133

Post by rossdavidh »

jmull wrote: post #22

I take this as one of the two central themes of this article: "...points to a persistent flaw in Silicon Valley financing: the willingness to give start-up founders unassailable control of their companies, to the point that investors have no recourse if things go blooey." That's not a flaw, it's a fundamental part of how it is meant to work. The investors generally don't want to invest in companies run by a committee…

Yeah, I found that same point quite problematic. There are basically two possibilities: 1) the founder is able to get this plane off the ground 2) the founder is not able to

In case (1), running it by committee is going to mess it up. The nature of a startup is that it is not doing ordinary, well-tested things, so no committee is going to approve what they do. Only a founder (or two) can get things off the ground with a coherent vision.

In case (2), you are screwed whether the founder has absolute control or not. Just don't invest, whether you get control or not.

Now all this may be very different for a Fortune 500, twenty or thirty year old company with an already established business model and good cashflow, etc. But this is talking about new companies, which absolutely should be under control of the founder.

Even in the case of older companies, the example of Apple after they kicked out Steve Jobs, before they brought him back, ought to give one pause about not letting the founders have too much control.

Re: Hype and plunder: Domo a new low for self-indulgent IPOs

#134

Post by austenallred »

dustinlocke wrote: post #72
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #53

"Domo also has spent $600,000 for catering services from Cubby's Chicago Beef, which describes itself as 'a cute little sandwich and salad restaurant.' It’s owned by Josh James and his brother Cubby. ('The menu does look delicious, but there must be caterers in American Fork, Utah, that aren’t owned by the boss,' remarked Shira Ovide of Bloomberg). Domo also has bought $200,000 in furnishings from Alice Lane Home Col…

For real though Cubby's is so good. If I worked there, I wouldn't be upset about the relationship because it's a very popular restaurant.

Having lived in Utah and eaten at Cubby's, that's the one part of the story that shouldn't raise an eyebrow. If it's between Cubby's or Kneaders give me Cubby's all day.

Re: Hype and plunder: Domo a new low for self-indulgent IPOs

#135

Post by bkirkby »

tntn wrote: post #99
aaronkchsu wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why people never mention https://instructure.com for Utah startups but I work for them and they seem great!

Again to clarify, I didn't mention them because they are based in Salt Lake. There are lots of great places in Salt Lake, but the discussion above was focused on Utah County (Provo, Orem, Lehi, etc.)

Instructure has an office in pleasant grove now too (but you are right, they are HQ in SLC)

Re: Hype and plunder: Domo a new low for self-indulgent IPOs

#136

Post by s73v3r_ »

shemnon42 wrote: post #117
tialaramex wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also it pre-selects for people who don't say, "But this story makes no sense whatsoever" after your pitch. 419 scammers use deliberately poor grammar and other choices to weed out the people who will figure out it's a scam before they hand over any money, same for an MLM. You want the people who'll lie and cheat and pump every dime they have into your MLM, not the ones who attend a seminar, make interested noises the…

> Also it pre-selects for people who don't say, "But this story makes no sense whatsoever" after your pitch. Thanks for exposing your biases, but you are wrong. It's more of a quid-pro-quo exchange on some of these MLMs or trying to be supportive of someone else's venture in your community. Nearly all know it is overpriced and not necessarily what they need, but it is the rapid exchange of social capital that keeps t…

If they really were being supportive, the church would ban all mention of MLM's around the church.

Re: Hype and plunder: Domo a new low for self-indulgent IPOs

#137

Post by nobleach »

phamilton wrote: post #101
tntn wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like door to door summer sales, and the massive bro culture associated with that. But just sign up, you'll make $50000 in 3 months! /s

I feel explaining this for everyone not in the know is appropriate. Mormon missionaries are usually young men ages 18-20 who go out into various places around the world for two years. They learn a lot, generally work really hard, and when they return they usually go off to school. Someone figured out that 2 years knocking on doors to talk about God isn't that different from knocking on doors to talk about . Various c…

Two of my nieces are out serving their "3 month pest control mission" as I write this. I hope they don't come back promoting the bro culture.

In all seriousness though, a few years ago, the bro culture in some of these Utah Valley startups made my job search a literal nightmare.

Re: Hype and plunder: Domo a new low for self-indulgent IPOs

#138

Post by tntn »

austenallred wrote: post #131
tntn wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The history is important. Silicon Valley has a history of creating undeniably valuable innovations and legitimate companies dating back 60+ years: HP, Shockley, SRI, Fairchild, Intel, Cisco, Apple, etc. This is the backdrop for Silicon Valley. In contrast, Utah Valley has a history of MLMs. This is the backdrop for Silicon Slopes.

What about Qualtrics (profitable) MX (profitable) Omniture (IPO, sold for $1.8B), and if we're digging as far back as Fairchild Utah has Novell, Wordperfect, etc. I left Utah to come to Silicon Valley, and definitely hate MLMs more than you, but to claim that Utah is only MLMs is just silly.

> but to claim that Utah is only MLMs is just silly.

I agree. That's why I have not made that claim.

Re: Hype and plunder: Domo a new low for self-indulgent IPOs

#139

Post by aetherson »

rossdavidh wrote: post #133
jmull wrote: post #22

I take this as one of the two central themes of this article: "...points to a persistent flaw in Silicon Valley financing: the willingness to give start-up founders unassailable control of their companies, to the point that investors have no recourse if things go blooey." That's not a flaw, it's a fundamental part of how it is meant to work. The investors generally don't want to invest in companies run by a committee…

Yeah, I found that same point quite problematic. There are basically two possibilities: 1) the founder is able to get this plane off the ground 2) the founder is not able to In case (1), running it by committee is going to mess it up. The nature of a startup is that it is not doing ordinary, well-tested things, so no committee is going to approve what they do. Only a founder (or two) can get things off the ground wit…

You have a false dichotomy between "running by committee" and "giving the founder complete control." Trying to have the board literally run the company is not generally a great idea. Having one or more non-founders in the leadership of the company, including possibly the CEO spot, is a fine idea and was how it used to pretty routinely be done.

When the company is very small, it probably doesn't make sense to inject an outside leader. The company isn't worth anything at that point: if it fails, it just fails.

But by the time the company has product-market fit, traction, revenue, and is trying to scale up, there may be plenty of reason to have non-founder leaders. Way before 20-30 years old.

Re: Hype and plunder: Domo a new low for self-indulgent IPOs

#140

Post by rmdashrfroot »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #91
madamelic wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. What's the worst they could do? It's their company. Worst case the CEO runs it into the ground and everyone loses their money. CEO =/= President of the United States.

And people lose their jobs, and get kicked out of their homes, etc.

That is a old armchair argument made from those in an ivory tower.

If it was YOUR business, you would want to control your dream, your vision -- not a bunch of rich folks who could decide to kick you out from your dream if your main goal is not to _remain profitable to the shareholders_.

Post reply on HN