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

Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 169 posts

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#131

Post by BlueTemplar »

chris_f wrote: post #74
wslh wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are in some way robots.txt and those Cloudflare measures anticompetitive and/or against net neutrality?

>Are in some way robots.txt and those Cloudflare measures anticompetitive? Article by Matt Wells from Gigablast on Cloudflare. Gigablast has one of the largest independent search indexes. https://www.gigablast.com/blog.html

Oh, wow, and he mentions that Cloudflare has received up to $110M from Microsoft, Google and Baidu !!

https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/22/cloudflare-locks-down-110m...

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#132

Post by njarboe »

NineStarPoint wrote: post #124
rexreed wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I totally agree with this comment, especially from experience knowing that the reality of an acquisition is far from the rosy picture promised to everyone, the truth is that founders and especially investors are motivated by the exit. Some founders start their companies to be flipped. Some start with the intention of going for the long-game but find the reality of competing in the market exhausting and emotiona…

Related, does anyone think that founders believe the “rosy pictures promised to everyone”? Like you said, there’s a ton of reasons for founders to want to sell, even ignoring the existence of investors who would obviously like a payout. Founders should known better than anyone exactly what they’re agreeing to with an acquisition, but that doesn’t remove the personal benefit. More generally, I never really hear storie…

Somewhat ironically, Google is an example of two founders doing just this.

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#134

Post by minikites »

ineedasername wrote: post #115
minikites wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I know the money is so alluring It's the only motivation. Why do you think wealthy and high income people fight so hard against repaying the society that educated them and provided the infrastructure to allow their business to flourish?

It's because most people want to believe that their success is due to their own specialness rather than some mix of luck and prior circumstances. I forget where it came from-- I thin Warren Buffet but I can't source it now-- but there's a sort of thought experiment or anecdote about this: Give everyone in the US a dollar. Then randomly choose half the country and have them give their dollar to a specific person in th…

Absolutely. There are studies where groups of people were examined while playing "Monopoly", but some players started with a massive money advantage. If (usually when) they won the game, they attributed it to their own skill at the game, not the massive advantage they had at the start. Being wealthy fucks up people's brains.

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#135

Post by jbay808 »

ineedasername wrote: post #118
adamsmith wrote: post #2

> I've tried to explain this to VC firms. Instead of making one $2 million investment, make five $400k investments. Would that mean sitting on too many boards? Don't sit on their boards. Would that mean too much due diligence? Do less. If you're investing at a tenth the valuation, you only have to be a tenth as sure. This turned out to be absolutely right, and the That said with the benefit of more hindsight I think…

Yes, thought I think the smaller $ amounts have also been helped along by reduced startup costs. Heck, a startup can literally get $100,000 of AWS credit for free. In manufacturing terms that's like getting the factory for free, you just have to configure the assembly line to build your specific product. So $400,000 will go a lot further these days than it would have 20 years ago.

20 years ago, you'd be competing with much smaller salaries from the big tech companies, which would make recruiting much easier. If you meet some smart people in college, you could more easily convince each other to try building something together, especially if they're averse to corporate 9-5 culture. Whereas now it's pretty likely that they'll have their eyes on FAANG jobs.

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#136

Post by jonny_eh »

dalbasal wrote: post #98
rexreed wrote: post #83

> Tip for acquirers: when a startup turns you down, consider raising your offer, because there's a good chance the outrageous price they want will later seem a bargain. There's no evidence that this is the case. Indeed, after founders are acquired their fierce competitive spirit and drive often starts to dissolve once the founders have gotten their exit and the teams run into the inevitable corporate realities that e…

It makes a lot more sense from a 2008 perspective. Google IPOed in 2004 for 2-3% of its current market cap. The tech monopoly dynamic wasn't where it is now. Also, he turned out to be right. Acquisition prices (eg fb acquisition of whatsapp, IG, etc) went up. Investors made a lot more small bets. A lot of "new Googles" got made. That may be played out already, but this is 12 years later.

> A lot of "new Googles" got made.

Such as?

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#137

Post by stainforth »

kavalg wrote: post #101
chris_f wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Are in some way robots.txt and those Cloudflare measures anticompetitive? Article by Matt Wells from Gigablast on Cloudflare. Gigablast has one of the largest independent search indexes. https://www.gigablast.com/blog.html

While I generally agree with Matt about the anti-competitive behavior of said tech giants, I just want to point out that: 1.Contents of robots.txt is created by the site owner, not those giants. 2.robots.txt is generally non-enforceable, unless someone like cloudflare translates it into proxy/DDoS settings (and can also actually distinguish a real google bot from a fake one). 3.Above behavior of cloudflare would be v…

Perhaps Google can be seen as a public utility like the phone wires, and has to provide access to its index

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#138

Post by modi15 »

> Tip for acquirers: when a startup turns you down, consider raising your offer, because there's a good chance the outrageous price they want will later seem a bargain.

This isnt accurate at all. Google/Facebook turned down the offers because at the time the offers came, they were 'feeling' good about their business. This feeling changes over time and had google not chanced on the business model of selling ads next to search results, they would have probably regretted not selling earliers.

No one at Google/Facebook knew that the companies would be as big as they became and most startups who say to an acquisition face failure exactly like the 99% of other startups, sooner or later.

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#139

Post by cryptica »

This is an excellent article.

The thing is that not only do VCs not fund startups which compete with big corporations, they don't even fund non-competing startups nowadays. They literally only fund startups whose only goal is to artificially launder revenue to corporations. For example, the startups load themselves up with debt and then they waste it all on Google or Facebook ads. Then they get acqui-hired just before they go bust so that the founders keep their mouths shut. Then the corporation shuts down the startup's product...

They never cared about the startup or its product.

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles (2008)

#140

Post by verdverm »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #85
rexreed wrote: post #83

> Tip for acquirers: when a startup turns you down, consider raising your offer, because there's a good chance the outrageous price they want will later seem a bargain. There's no evidence that this is the case. Indeed, after founders are acquired their fierce competitive spirit and drive often starts to dissolve once the founders have gotten their exit and the teams run into the inevitable corporate realities that e…

I know lots of founders will read this, please for the good of humanity stop being acquired. I know the money is so alluring, but how much is your soul worth and will that money make you happy? The future of humanity depends on tech people making tiny principled stands like this over and over. Don’t believe the lies spewing out from the acquiring company. Nothing will ever be the same again and your product will be e…

There are other stories like PayPal and the numerous new companies that came after. I'm much more in favor of having Tesla and SpaceX than not
Post reply on HN