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

I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 618 posts

Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA

#391

Post by dakolli »

wilkommen wrote: post #345

Good companies go bad because the American financial system and thus the companies that live within that system are geared for "shareholder returns" as the primary objective of existence for the corporation. If the objective of the corporation was simply to protect its continued existence, more akin to a nation-state or a club, then it would be possible to have a wider variety of corporations which each behave differ…

In America it's more important to maintain or grow shareholder returns than it is to not poison your customers. Its perfectly alright to give your customers cancer (Roundup, Fracking, Massive amounts of sugars which lead to metabolic disease)as long as it makes someone rich and they can donate to a political campaign. We really are the most evil and corrupt country to ever exist. We need a Mao, Stalin type figure to set things straight.

Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA

#392

Post by eries »

bensyverson wrote: post #350
eries wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, "universally misunderstood?" That's harsh. I don't think you can put an idea out into the world without understanding that some people are going to willfully misunderstand it. We live now, especially in the age where literally ignorance is optional. When you see someone who misunderstands what an MVP is, you know that they haven't spent even five minutes reading the Wikipedia page or made any effort to try to un…

Thanks for the reply, and I didn't intend it to sound as harsh as it came off! I did encourage our clients to actually read The Lean Startup to understand the full context of the MVP concept, and with the benefit of that context, we did use the term "MVP" to describe initial builds. The frustration I describe came mostly from secondary (not day-to-day) client stakeholders, who probably got their information about MVP…

Eager to hear what you think after you've had a chance to read it. Do let me know.

Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA

#393

Post by eries »

bensyverson wrote: post #378
realty_geek wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question - I hope he gets to answer this. Right now I actually think an MVP should be Maximum Viable Product. Partly because of AI but also because it shifts one's perspective to what Viable means.

"Viable" is the core of the misunderstanding. I think some business leaders took "minimum viable" to mean "bare-minimum." It doesn't. In my mind I think of it as a live prototype shipped to real users, built out just enough to answer a clear learning objective. I agree that AI makes the MVP easier to build, but it makes things so easy to build, there is a slight risk of overbuilding the wrong things, which can distra…

Well said on both counts.

Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA

#395

Post by eries »

dcarmo wrote: post #389

It's interesting how none of the top comments mentions capitalism as the reason for companies losing their original mission. It's the same force that causes enshittification: the (unachieavable) infinite pursuit of profit. Sooner or later all companies will fall into the "financial gravity". The ones the author mentioned just haven't gotten there yet.

I know this is a common belief, yet the data doesn't really support it. There are truly exceptions. If you study how they became exceptional, you'll find that they defy so many of the so-called best practices we teach today about how companies should be built, structured, and governed. I don't think this is a coincidence.

Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA

#397

Post by harrisonjackson »

eries wrote: post #187
ngriffiths wrote: post #178

My biggest struggle with this question is that "going bad" sometimes coincides with not just financial incentives, but also more people getting value out of it. For example Spotify gradually shifting from "we make it easy to curate and share playlists" to "we make them for you to use as background music constantly." Sometimes what's bad for the early power user is great for the late adopter, and it's difficult to mak…

I don't have the link in front of me, but someone who used to work at Spotify wrote a really nice reflection about this change through the lens of incorruptible over on LinkedIn. If someone can find it and post it here, that'd be great. If not, I'll try to remember to come back and post it later. I think these changes very rarely have to do with what customers want shifting, but when people say "the market," they are…

Easy to see how a North Star (aligned with mission or not) may have shifted this over time. “Hours listened” as a metric. I’ll be interested to read this and see if you mention measuring the rights things as a way to stay on mission.

Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA

#398

Post by BoingBoomTschak »

claw-el wrote: post #291
lebovic wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having values doesn't mean they're "the right" values nor the same as your values. Regardless, it's still atypical in the context of an American company, and it can help explain the differences between Anthropic and its peers. That doesn't mean I agree with their decisions or that they're "the right" decisions, but I think it's a helpful framing in which to understand them.

Is “having values” just “stubborn” then?

"Integrity" would be a fairer term. At least enough of it to not let money sway you.

Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA

#399

Post by anthuswilliams »

eries wrote: post #161
minkzilla wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment didn’t say anything about size or wall street. It said leadership is what has preserved it. Which it doesn’t seem you have refuted in any meaningful way. You just restated what the parent comment is responding to with no further reasoning as to why leadership doesn’t account for it.

I honestly don't understand your comment, so let me try and recapitulate what I think you're saying and what I think I was saying, and then you can tell me where I missed the mark. What I hear you saying is that the original comment simply said that leadership by itself is enough to preserve the Costco ethos. It didn't say anything about size or Wall Street or anything else. Is that right? The reason I responded the…

I read the comment as arguing that leadership is necessary, not that it is sufficient. That is, that no amount of governance could have prevented the change in the price of the hot dog; only the leader could.

Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA

#400

Post by bo1024 »

eries wrote: post #362
wilkommen wrote: post #345

Good companies go bad because the American financial system and thus the companies that live within that system are geared for "shareholder returns" as the primary objective of existence for the corporation. If the objective of the corporation was simply to protect its continued existence, more akin to a nation-state or a club, then it would be possible to have a wider variety of corporations which each behave differ…

What's interesting is that this is not a long-standing pillar of the American financial system but a relatively recent addition that was done without any democratic legitimacy whatsoever. I think it's pretty clear that if we go a different direction, we can have a different outcome.

Is it much different in other countries?
Post reply on HN