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

151–160 of 169 posts

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

#151

Post by cercatrova »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #146
minikites wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People are capable of saying one thing, and thinking another. I do it all the time, mostly for political purposes. There are many times where it is not in my interest to tell others what I really think, and I assume other are also not playing the game with all of their cards showing. I.e. I assume people know the role luck plays in life, but are also not interested in the consequences of acknowledging that, and/or ar…

This is known as preference falsification (https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification). It's something interesting to think about. I often try not to falsify my preferences, even if people don't like me because of them.

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

#152

Post by znpy »

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…

>> 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.

> Simply "offering more" does not address the reason why there aren't more Googles.

You must put that advice in context...

The context here is that PG's job is to be the first investor in a company.

Advising potential acquirers to raise the offer can only grow his personal return.

It makes perfect sense for PG to encourage potential acquirers to throw more money at startups.

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

#153

Post by loxs »

thelean12 wrote: post #147
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I know the money is so alluring, but how much is your soul worth and will that money make you happy? I really don't understand this attitude. If someone offers me enough money so that I never have to work again, you expect me not to take it? I'll sell any company if I could get $4 million after tax and never have to work again. Every single time I'll take that offer. I guess that's how much my "soul" is worth. And…

To me it seems really preposterous and dishonest when somebody does NOT think like this.

We have one life. The time we do not spend with our children (or the time we postpone having them "for the greater good") can never be returned back.

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

#154

Post by mahemm »

sebmellen wrote: post #7

This article shows its age with the quote: > The median startup coming out of Y Combinator wants to raise $250-500k. I think raising comparatively small amounts stokes a kind of vigour you can't get when sitting on a few million in cash. I wonder how this dynamic has shifted the outcome of Y Combinator alumni companies. Perhaps we would have more Googles if this trend of raising less had persisted. Money breeding laz…

>Money breeding laziness ... killed ICOs

ICOs were killed by Solidity and the Ethereum ecosystem more generally being insufficiently expressive to create anything of value other than pyramid schemes (insofar as those have value).

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

#155

Post by vajrabum »

ineedasername wrote: post #106
dasil003 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you also not buy products from big companies? Because they also kill their own products or let them wither on the vine out of apathy.

Sure, but we're talking about probability here. Established enterprise products from large companies usually have a published roadmap and guaranteed support period years in advance. It may be a mediocre product, but a business knows Oracle isn't going to kill off their ERP system any time soon, and also knows the minimum sunset date for all versions and can plan updates & upgrades accordingly.

How many people are buying Oracle ERP as a new purchase these days? Isn't that pretty much a legacy techology?

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

#156

Post by RandallBrown »

thelean12 wrote: post #147
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I know the money is so alluring, but how much is your soul worth and will that money make you happy? I really don't understand this attitude. If someone offers me enough money so that I never have to work again, you expect me not to take it? I'll sell any company if I could get $4 million after tax and never have to work again. Every single time I'll take that offer. I guess that's how much my "soul" is worth. And…

Yeah, the only way I'm not selling my business in that scenario is if I'm already in a position where I don't have to work again.

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

#157

Post by 0xquad »

dalbasal wrote: post #96

A 2020 version of this might be "why there aren't more Teslas." Elon's might be a rare cat, but he's probably not one in eight billion. At this point, changing the world with a new FB or Google is more about dislodging monopolies then it is about innovation. Meanwhile, a promising startup in this space would find it quite easy to get big/late stage funding because of acquisitions. A "tesla" will have a hard time gett…

> A 2020 version of this might be "why there aren't more Teslas." It's interesting how many electric car companies are active in China, most of which westerners haven't heard of. (Check for example the video of the "Chengdu Motor Show" by FullyChargedShow on YT.) Relevant to the topic at hand, it seems that the "More Googles" are more likely to be arising in China, mostly outside my reality bubble. Some helped by market segregation enforced by the current political situation. That's orthogonal to the overall topic, but not irrelevant.

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

#158

Post by yumraj »

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 agree and logically it makes no sense, since what is the limit?

Theoretically everyone will sell at some point and the above argument can be made in each and every case.

Let's say Yahoo had offered Google $1B, and Google declined, Yahoo ups its offer to $2B, Google still declined.. this can go on forever till we reach Yahoo's maximum capacity to pay and if Google still declines with: it's not enough - the above argument would still hold.

Thus, IMHO, the above argument has no merit. While price is certainly a very important factor, there are always other underlying issues as to why some sell and others don't.

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

#159

Post by jmsad »

rexreed wrote: post #89
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

One thing to help fix this is for the VC community to become more comfortable with (and even encourage) funding rounds which allow founders and early employees to get some liquidity from their equity. Taking a company from idea to IPO usually takes the better part of a decade (or longer), and it's pretty unfair to ask people who have already risked a lot to keep living on peanuts and hoping that some unforeseen situation which may be largely beyond their control doesn't send the value of their equity to zero before they get to IPO.

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

#160

Post by lotsofpulp »

cercatrova wrote: post #151
lotsofpulp wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are capable of saying one thing, and thinking another. I do it all the time, mostly for political purposes. There are many times where it is not in my interest to tell others what I really think, and I assume other are also not playing the game with all of their cards showing. I.e. I assume people know the role luck plays in life, but are also not interested in the consequences of acknowledging that, and/or ar…

This is known as preference falsification ( https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification ). It's something interesting to think about. I often try not to falsify my preferences, even if people don't like me because of them.

A minimal amount is preferred. But at the end of the day, it’s a very good tool to deal with allocation of resources. It’s also the definition of politics.

People do it all the time with friends and relatives. You don’t up front tell someone they’re only worth 10 min of your time, or you prefer visiting someone else in your free time. But you make up excuses or stretch some truths to give both parties plausible deniability, which allows everyone to save face.

Workplace politics is the same. You have a limited amount of time and energy to devote, so you will have to sacrifice some coworker’s or manager’s priorities for other colleague’s priorities. But you’d be foolish to tell them up front. Enter workplace politics, where you have to figure out whose aligned with who and for what purpose do you can figure out your next move.

The more scarce/valuable the resource, the more politics comes into play. And if it gets too scarce/valuable, it will end up in violence/war.

Being able to navigate these signals is a crucial factor to succeeding in society, in my opinion.

Post reply on HN