Driverless Startup Zoox Suddenly Removes CEO • Hacker News Board

Re: Driverless Startup Zoox Suddenly Removes CEO

#41

Post by lbriner » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 9:29 AM UTC

shriver wrote: post #38

You don't just get rid of the founder and CEO for shits and giggles. I'd love to know what it was that prompted this, although I'm not sure if we'll ever find out.

Since he doesn't claim to know why, by far the most likely reason is that they don't believe he has what it takes to take the company further, whether technically or in terms of management or industry experience.

This is the cold hard world of business which is why founders should keep some decent equity to make sure they don't get stiffed like the guys at Fanduel: http://uk.businessinsider.com/fanduel-founders-likely-to-los...

Re: Driverless Startup Zoox Suddenly Removes CEO

#42

Post by pxtail » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 9:47 AM UTC

Fricken wrote: post #25

ratacat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... Are you in any relationships with them?

I know a programmer who worked for BioWare in my home city who has been with Zoox for about a year. I met him once, years before he left for SF, because we have a mutual ex-girlfriend. So yeah, I'm right up in there.

Here we go. Gotcha! Mutual interest

Re: Driverless Startup Zoox Suddenly Removes CEO

#43

Post by sofon » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 9:48 AM UTC

lbriner wrote: post #40

sofon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would this be a good plan? Booting a startup CEO always looks bad in my opinion and would likely concern anyone doing a follow on investment.

Because you think he was good for fighting his way through the early stages of a company but doesn't show the right skillset to go the next level.

If that were the case, you'd have a better managed transition.

Ideally you'd have the CEO onboard with this from the start. Alternatively when it came time to boot them, you'd a) already have someone in place to take over b) be able to pay them off sufficiently to not make a fuss, and help you frame it as transitioning to a new role (i.e. they'd stay on as an advisor, move to a COO role etc.).

Re: Driverless Startup Zoox Suddenly Removes CEO

#44

Post by dullgiulio » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 9:49 AM UTC

okonomiyaki3000 wrote: post #33

Zoox? Those "Web 2.0 Name Generators" are fine if your company makes games or some nerdy stuff but I don't know how comfortable most people would be turning operation of their vehicle over to something that sounds like it was invented by Dr Seuss.

When I was a kid, almost every company name ended on "tec", "tech" or "tek".

Every generation will be shamed by the next.

Re: Driverless Startup Zoox Suddenly Removes CEO

#45

Post by bitL » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 11:21 AM UTC

sofon wrote: post #43

lbriner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you think he was good for fighting his way through the early stages of a company but doesn't show the right skillset to go the next level.

If that were the case, you'd have a better managed transition. Ideally you'd have the CEO onboard with this from the start. Alternatively when it came time to boot them, you'd a) already have someone in place to take over b) be able to pay them off sufficiently to not make a fuss, and help you frame it as transitioning to a new role (i.e. they'd stay on as an advisor, move to a COO role etc.).

Intel did the same - threw out CEO with some mud flying down. Decency seems to be out of fashion lately.

Re: Driverless Startup Zoox Suddenly Removes CEO

#46

Post by tim333 » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 11:35 AM UTC

okonomiyaki3000 wrote: post #33

Zoox? Those "Web 2.0 Name Generators" are fine if your company makes games or some nerdy stuff but I don't know how comfortable most people would be turning operation of their vehicle over to something that sounds like it was invented by Dr Seuss.

>It’s an abbreviation of zooxanthellae, the algae that helps fuel coral reef growth

For what it's worth

Re: Driverless Startup Zoox Suddenly Removes CEO

#47

Post by throwawaymath » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 12:01 PM UTC

askafriend wrote: post #11

Fricken wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tim has lots of experience in business and tech. From scratch he built a self driving car company valued at $3.2 billion, whose autonomous OS is outperforming efforts from major automakers and tech companies and with a fraction of the resources. Zoox has gotten to where they are now on about $300 million. Others have spent far more and have a lot less to show for it.

Your comment history suggests that you have some relationship with Zoox that you're not disclosing. You've commented on Zoox several times before in an overly enthusiastic manner. You've also commented several times before on autonomy and your comments have been called out for astroturfing in a couple of instances. Readers please beware and take this comment with a grain of salt.

Accusing someone of astroturfing (or in your case, merely suggesting it) undermines the integrity of online discussion. It has a chilling effect on perspectives that may be viewed as controversial.

Just because someone is enthusiastic doesn’t mean they’re a shill. Even if you’re ultimately correct you shouldn’t wield that accusation without exceptional evidence - being an apologist for a company is not exceptional evidence. Cynicism has a place but you can’t just use it like a blunt instrument.

Re: Driverless Startup Zoox Suddenly Removes CEO

#48

Post by jstandard » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 1:08 PM UTC

sofon wrote: post #43

lbriner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you think he was good for fighting his way through the early stages of a company but doesn't show the right skillset to go the next level.

If that were the case, you'd have a better managed transition. Ideally you'd have the CEO onboard with this from the start. Alternatively when it came time to boot them, you'd a) already have someone in place to take over b) be able to pay them off sufficiently to not make a fuss, and help you frame it as transitioning to a new role (i.e. they'd stay on as an advisor, move to a COO role etc.).

Ideally yes, likely, no. From the sparse details we do have it sounds like there were some fundamental disagreements between the board and CEO. The board may have seen firing the CEO as the path of least resistance. It seems harsh, but without extensive insider details, it's hard to know whether it was the right call.

Re: Driverless Startup Zoox Suddenly Removes CEO

#49

Post by shriver » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 1:11 PM UTC

lbriner wrote: post #41

shriver wrote: post #38

You don't just get rid of the founder and CEO for shits and giggles. I'd love to know what it was that prompted this, although I'm not sure if we'll ever find out.

Since he doesn't claim to know why, by far the most likely reason is that they don't believe he has what it takes to take the company further, whether technically or in terms of management or industry experience. This is the cold hard world of business which is why founders should keep some decent equity to make sure they don't get stiffed like the guys at Fanduel: http://uk.businessinsider.com/fanduel-founders-likel…

Well he says he doesn't know why, but that seems disingenuous. If they had said they don't have confidence in his abilities to take the company forward that would be a reason - he could disagree but he would absolutely know why. So either they genuinely didn't tell him - which indicates it's something they think would cause trouble, or he does know why but won't tell us.

Re: Driverless Startup Zoox Suddenly Removes CEO

#50

Post by sofon » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 1:16 PM UTC

bitL wrote: post #45

sofon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were the case, you'd have a better managed transition. Ideally you'd have the CEO onboard with this from the start. Alternatively when it came time to boot them, you'd a) already have someone in place to take over b) be able to pay them off sufficiently to not make a fuss, and help you frame it as transitioning to a new role (i.e. they'd stay on as an advisor, move to a COO role etc.).

Intel did the same - threw out CEO with some mud flying down. Decency seems to be out of fashion lately.

Yes, I think throwing out the CEO of an established company with revenue is quite a bit different than throwing out the CEO of a pre-product startup however.

With a startup, you've invested in the founding team. If you throw them out... you've effectively thrown out a significant part of what you invested in. It also calls in to question your own judgement as an investor. And it reduces your standing in the eye of companies looking for investment.

Overall, unless something really really bad happens you don't want to throw out the founder...

If you just don't have confidence? You either let the investment go, or you try and pump it and get someone to buy you out in a subsequent round.

The only possibility I can see if that someone wants to buy Zoox, they made a really generous offer... but the Zoox CEO blocked the sale. Acquiring company is willing to take Zoox without the CEO to get Zoox out of the market, and acquire the team for their own projects...