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

Monkey-read, monkey-do entrepreneurship

ambershah.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–37 of 37 posts

Re: Monkey-read, monkey-do entrepreneurship

#31

Post by pg »

patio11 wrote: post #25
pg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems very, very unlikely. Dividends have been done before. They were how "startups" used to pay investors back in the railroad days. But the rates had to be set in advance. Without preset rates, investors would have to trust company managements not to skim profits (which there are 101 semi-legit ways to do) and claim there were none to return. And while a railroad could predict profits with reasonable certainty,…

If you do not trust management, they can act to detriment of investors even without dividends. All they have to do is pay themselves market wages, for the right value of "market", rather than investing in growth. Or they can run company like it was Japanese, where it exists to buy perks for employees off their own taxable income. (The four star chef is for recruiting! Honest!) This is a two way street, since investor…

Larger funding rounds include provisions to protect against such abuses. The ultimate of course is the right to replace the CEO if necessary. In practice they seem to work.

Re: Monkey-read, monkey-do entrepreneurship

#32

Post by pg »

garply wrote: post #27
pg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems very, very unlikely. Dividends have been done before. They were how "startups" used to pay investors back in the railroad days. But the rates had to be set in advance. Without preset rates, investors would have to trust company managements not to skim profits (which there are 101 semi-legit ways to do) and claim there were none to return. And while a railroad could predict profits with reasonable certainty,…

Why would you do business with, let alone invest in, people whom you did not trust?

The problem is the difficulty of the second half of "trust but verify."

Re: Monkey-read, monkey-do entrepreneurship

#33

Post by pg »

ahoyhere wrote: post #26
noodle wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, it wouldn't be a YC failure, it would just probably be a company YC wouldn't invest in. why would a single-person 200k/year profit company need YC? edit: this seems to me like she's confused. YC's preferences on companies that they would like to invest their time and money in doesn't necessarily equal "the best way" for all entrepreneurs under all situations and circumstances.

Yes, but the PG message - and the message of other VCs - is not "Well, here's one valid way to make a lot of money (with investment and an exit), but you can also make lots of money with a SaaS." It's "This is the way to do business." That's the issue.

That's false. I have never used the word entrepreneur in an essay, except once in a phrase in scare quotes. My essays are addressed strictly to the small subset of entrepreneurs who are starting startups.

If people interpret what I say more broadly than I mean, there's not much I can do about that, but if you go back and look at the actual words I use, I could not be more explicit.

Re: Monkey-read, monkey-do entrepreneurship

#34

Post by netcan »

pg wrote: post #30
AmberShah wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is interesting to me. I consider what I have a startup, but what is the distinction? I'm not sure what about the $200K statement makes me an entrepreneur and not a startup. I'm assuming we are talking about scalable tech business, not consulting. EDIT: Updated for clarity.

I don't know what you're doing, but consulting is not the only way to have limited growth prospects. A company could also be making a product for a niche market (and not be doing it merely as a way to get started engaging with users). I believe some people call these niche software companies MicroISVs.

I think you need to start qualifying 'startup'a little more, particularly when the topic tends towards hair splitting.

It looks like the definition a lot of people use is one that includes your startup as a subset.

I find it so frustrating reading through threads like this that get all bogged down in semantic nitpicking. It also opens a door to a particularly annoying type of quasi-trolling or baiting. Maybe 'startups that exit' or something

Re: Monkey-read, monkey-do entrepreneurship

#35

Post by pg »

netcan wrote: post #34
pg wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what you're doing, but consulting is not the only way to have limited growth prospects. A company could also be making a product for a niche market (and not be doing it merely as a way to get started engaging with users). I believe some people call these niche software companies MicroISVs.

I think you need to start qualifying 'startup'a little more, particularly when the topic tends towards hair splitting. It looks like the definition a lot of people use is one that includes your startup as a subset. I find it so frustrating reading through threads like this that get all bogged down in semantic nitpicking. It also opens a door to a particularly annoying type of quasi-trolling or baiting. Maybe 'startup…

I've found the best strategy (as with most words) is just to use the word the way it's used in standard, educated usage.

In standard usage, a startup does not mean any newly created company. It means a newly created company designed to scale dramatically. Most of the 20 million businesses in the US are not startups, because they aren't designed to scale. They're either service businesses or niche product businesses.

Re: Monkey-read, monkey-do entrepreneurship

#36

Post by ahoyhere »

pg wrote: post #33
ahoyhere wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the PG message - and the message of other VCs - is not "Well, here's one valid way to make a lot of money (with investment and an exit), but you can also make lots of money with a SaaS." It's "This is the way to do business." That's the issue.

That's false. I have never used the word entrepreneur in an essay, except once in a phrase in scare quotes. My essays are addressed strictly to the small subset of entrepreneurs who are starting startups. If people interpret what I say more broadly than I mean, there's not much I can do about that, but if you go back and look at the actual words I use, I could not be more explicit.

I didn't use the word entrepreneur, either. That's a bad stab at replying to me, and you know it. You often imply, although in not so many words, that the essence of what it means to be a "hacker" is to do a "startup".

Re: Monkey-read, monkey-do entrepreneurship

#37

Post by pg »

ahoyhere wrote: post #36
pg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's false. I have never used the word entrepreneur in an essay, except once in a phrase in scare quotes. My essays are addressed strictly to the small subset of entrepreneurs who are starting startups. If people interpret what I say more broadly than I mean, there's not much I can do about that, but if you go back and look at the actual words I use, I could not be more explicit.

I didn't use the word entrepreneur, either. That's a bad stab at replying to me, and you know it. You often imply, although in not so many words, that the essence of what it means to be a "hacker" is to do a "startup".

I certainly don't believe that starting a startup is the essence of being a hacker. What a completely crazy idea. How could I believe that Ken Thompson was missing the essence of being a hacker?

I wish you'd be either less contentious or less mistaken. It would be fine if you were one or the other, but having to deal with both simultaneously gets kind of wearing after a while.

Post reply on HN