The Fatal Pinch • Hacker News Board

Re: The Fatal Pinch

#201

Post by marktangotango » Tue, Dec 09, 2014, 8:30 PM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #38

super_sloth wrote: post #8

"Although your product may not be very appealing yet, if you're a startup your programmers will often be way better than the ones your customers have or can hire." Is this really true? I'm very sceptical. Does anyone have any evidence to back this up?

Actually, it's more like this. There are good programmers in the enterprise (meaning, say, investment banks or large corporations or governments) but they generally fall, ambition-wise, into one of three categories: (1) those who want to become managers or software architects (or, in finance, quants and traders) and will define and oversee work but delegate the dirty bits. This would be fixable (they could oversee a…

You missed the low ambition axis:

(4) Good but insecure (at least in a financial dimension) who seek the safety and anonymity of large corps and

(5) Favor 9-5, low stress, and a steady paycheck

Re: The Fatal Pinch

#202

Post by michaelochurch » Tue, Dec 09, 2014, 8:48 PM UTC

marktangotango wrote: post #201

michaelochurch wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it's more like this. There are good programmers in the enterprise (meaning, say, investment banks or large corporations or governments) but they generally fall, ambition-wise, into one of three categories: (1) those who want to become managers or software architects (or, in finance, quants and traders) and will define and oversee work but delegate the dirty bits. This would be fixable (they could oversee a…

You missed the low ambition axis: (4) Good but insecure (at least in a financial dimension) who seek the safety and anonymity of large corps and (5) Favor 9-5, low stress, and a steady paycheck

The (4) and (5), if they're good-- both in terms of being skillful and having a strong work ethic-- will usually seek managerial roles or transition out of programming.

Contrary to what is often said about middle management being hell on earth, it's not worse (on average) than being on a team, just different. You don't have to be unambitious to want a job where you primarily evaluate others' work instead of doing the work.

Re: The Fatal Pinch

#203

Post by danieltillett » Tue, Dec 09, 2014, 9:26 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #194

danieltillett wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have they been replaced with anything else? Without redemption rights what do VC have to keep control of founders?

Not investing in founders that aren't going for the home run. Ultimately many of the good VCs would rather not "keep control" of founders. They'd rather just pass on the investments that look like they will become a big drain on VC partner time & attention in the future. A startup where there's a big power struggle over company directions and the board has to kick out the founders is far worse than not making the inv…

Yes but how do they know this in advance? Up until quite late in the process the founder control the majority of the company. I am amazed that more founders have not gone feral.

My experience is from sometime ago (long before YC). Interestingly my business did pivot to being a lifestyle businesss, not out of choice, but because I could not get VC funding. My only regret is that it took my customers longer to learn about our products than they would have if I had not had to bootstrap.

Re: The Fatal Pinch

#204

Post by Schwolop » Wed, Dec 10, 2014, 12:06 AM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #187

tptacek wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true of sole practitioners . Most consulting engineers aren't that. They're employees of firms that bill them out.

You'd probably know more about that world. In your opinion, are these consultants more like corporate employees (in terms of demanding managerial investment in their careers, and slacking or leaving if they don't get it) or are they more like independent consultants (who'll do a nasty project if the hourly rate is high)?

I'm in that world right now. Most here are like corporate employees, with a few exceptions. In most cases people _will_ do a nasty project to help the company, because in the past the company has turned away the nasty projects even when they looked profitable, because they were more interested in slower growth of interesting work than quick money from boring work. When that boring work becomes necessary, people are prepared to do it on the assumption that there'll be interesting stuff around the corner. So, here at least, the trust flows both ways, and that's a great thing. (edit: since I'm replying to you Michael, it's probably worth stating that in your terminology I'm currently working in a "guild" environment, and that's rare enough that my experience is probably the exception not the norm.)

Re: The Fatal Pinch

#205

Post by crpatino » Wed, Dec 10, 2014, 12:37 AM UTC

LukeFitzpatrick wrote: post #164

danieltillett wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I am not so sure that your friends did the wrong thing here. Sure the business failed, but if they got to transfer all the investors money to themselves while at the same time learning how to run a startup (all with someone else money) then it was pretty smart. Now they need to take the cash they saved and wisdom accumulated and bootstrap their next business up without any VC money.

Yeah, they used all the money on themselves. A free learning period so to speak. But, I wouldn't want to do that with investors money, reputation might hurt them in the long run. One of the guys is a product manager at Google now, another moved back to his home town. Only one of them is still doing the startup thing. They definitely got a lot of experience, this only counts if they learnt from their mistakes. Which,…

I think the key phrase here is "in the long run".

Nothing that you said suggests that there's something going on besides an honest rookie mistake. And if you are not willing to loose some dime because a rookie did something that in retrospective sounded stupid... well, it doesn't seem you will enjoy Venture Capitalism very much.

If and when these guys try to make a business model out of it, and there is a track of investor's money dilapidated in building technically sound products with zero market value... well, word can spread out pretty fast.

Re: The Fatal Pinch

#206

Post by zem » Wed, Dec 10, 2014, 1:47 AM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #202

marktangotango wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the low ambition axis: (4) Good but insecure (at least in a financial dimension) who seek the safety and anonymity of large corps and (5) Favor 9-5, low stress, and a steady paycheck

The (4) and (5), if they're good-- both in terms of being skillful and having a strong work ethic-- will usually seek managerial roles or transition out of programming. Contrary to what is often said about middle management being hell on earth, it's not worse (on average) than being on a team, just different. You don't have to be unambitious to want a job where you primarily evaluate others' work instead of doing the…

i'd see myself as a (5) who enjoys interesting but low-stress programming. i'm happy to put in my 9-5 in a big company that can guarantee me a steady stream of interesting projects, and thus far my managers have had no complaints about either my skills or my work ethic, but i have zero desire to transition out of programming.

Re: The Fatal Pinch

#207

Post by joshu » Wed, Dec 10, 2014, 1:52 AM UTC

blazespin wrote: post #153

joshu wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. For me, all but one that raised < $500k died.

This is news.ycombinator.com, a forum for an incubator that's main raison d'être is seed funding .. What else would you expect?

Do you have any idea how startup fundraising works?

Re: The Fatal Pinch

#208

Post by rlucas » Wed, Dec 10, 2014, 5:26 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #128

X-Istence wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe because the founders are not required to take the follow-up 1MM if they don't need it, and thus don't need to hand over equity worth that 1MM.

They could always agree to return the cash if they didn't need it. I guess it would depend on the agreement signed.

That would be an exceedingly weird financial term. In effect, it would commit the investors to fronting cash, but give the managers an option as to whether and when to accept the cash at the agreed price (and deliver shares) or to reject some or all of it (and return cash).

Just from practice, you'll never see this from normal (professional or practiced) startup investors. Nor will you see its identical twin, the required second tranche.