There's a kind of shutting down not covered here: getting acquired. Too often a phrase similar to "our incredible journey"[0] appears, in which case as an end-user you know the time for enjoying the service is at an end just as surely as if the startup went bankrupt.
On Shutting Down
41–50 of 88 posts
Re: On Shutting Down
#42The worst thing is to keep beating up the dead horse. At least in the gaming industry, you can clearly see some companies "milking" the brand of games, Bethesda and Blizzard have been doing nothing else recently IMHO. But as long as it sells I guess the company is still satisfied with chosen politics, even though it's profit over quality.
Blizzard released Hearthstone in 2014, Heroes of the Storm in 2015, and Overwatch in 2016. It's very difficult to characterize that as "milking". And Bethesda has Starfield in the pipeline, though it's a next-gen title at this point.
I also don't think Blizzard or Bethesda are particularly good examples of game studios "milking" it. Sure you can use the "new IP" filter to describe those who are "milking" and those who aren't, but to me it's ok to reuse existing IP if there's a significant new spin to it (rather than beating a dead horse). Take Doom 4 (2016) as an example from Bethesda via id, rather than being a knockoff it totally revived the series, capturing what it means to be "Doom" while also feeling fresh against all the other FPSes at the time. In contrast look at Nintendo's parade of 2.5D Mario side-scrolling platformers since New Super Mario Bros DS. They're all basically the same. Yet even then they can still sometimes produce something greater than that with Odyssey.
Re: On Shutting Down
#43There's a kind of shutting down not covered here: getting acquired. Too often a phrase similar to "our incredible journey"[0] appears, in which case as an end-user you know the time for enjoying the service is at an end just as surely as if the startup went bankrupt. [0] https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/
It's pretty easy for founders/execs at that point to make regrettable comments along the line of 'this is going to be great for our customers'.
Sometimes being honest and taking care of your customer/employees/other stakeholders requires you to say "I don't know" or "this will be a change" instead of what you think they might like to hear.
Re: On Shutting Down
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
The dreaded "zombie". Profitable enough that the investors can't pull the plug by force. Not growing enough that anyone will make any money out of it. It is my observation that because of "natural attrition" often both the management and employees tend to get replaced with B-players over time. The investors lose interest, their money is gone, their incentive to care a whit is gone, so they apply their attention where…
Dreaded by everyone except the users/customers, who come to depend on the service the startup provides.
... and the people it employs? I see alot of winners in "zombie" startups. I wonder what the ROI of the average business is. Pizza places, AI shops alike.
Re: On Shutting Down
#45There's a kind of shutting down not covered here: getting acquired. Too often a phrase similar to "our incredible journey"[0] appears, in which case as an end-user you know the time for enjoying the service is at an end just as surely as if the startup went bankrupt. [0] https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/
It's pretty easy for founders/execs at that point to make regrettable comments along the line of 'this is going to be great for our customers'. Sometimes being honest and taking care of your customer/employees/other stakeholders requires you to say "I don't know" or "this will be a change" instead of what you think they might like to hear.
It can be hard to hear what those other stakeholders are saying over all the noise the dump truck full of money makes when it starts backing up toward you.
Re: On Shutting Down
#46YC has talked about how startups die of suicide, not homicide. Shutting down is a hard decision, and there always seems to be pressure to do it. Raising money looks like success to others - so it's tough to declare later that you have made nothing of value and will close shop. Here were my shutdown articles after I closed Staffjoy: https://blog.staffjoy.com/staffjoy-is-shutting-down-39f7b5d6... https://blog.staffjoy.…
it's tough to declare later that you have made nothing of value and will close shop. It's not that you've made nothing of value or that there was no need, it's simply that you weren't able to build a viable business from what you were doing. It doesn't even mean that nobody could build a viable business, it may be that your definition of viable is different from someone else's (e.g. minimum required growth numbers, d…
I think the definition of viable isn’t really up for debate. But I do agree with your sentiment:
There may have been a need and you may have created value but perhaps the need/value wasn’t viable at the target size set for the business by the founders and investors.
Re: On Shutting Down
#47There's a kind of shutting down not covered here: getting acquired. Too often a phrase similar to "our incredible journey"[0] appears, in which case as an end-user you know the time for enjoying the service is at an end just as surely as if the startup went bankrupt. [0] https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/
It's pretty easy for founders/execs at that point to make regrettable comments along the line of 'this is going to be great for our customers'. Sometimes being honest and taking care of your customer/employees/other stakeholders requires you to say "I don't know" or "this will be a change" instead of what you think they might like to hear.
It's not always possible to make such statements, depending on the terms of the buyout. That goes doubly so if the founders/execs have a continuing relationship with the buyers. Even if it turns out to be a short term relationship.
Re: On Shutting Down
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blizzard released Hearthstone in 2014, Heroes of the Storm in 2015, and Overwatch in 2016. It's very difficult to characterize that as "milking". And Bethesda has Starfield in the pipeline, though it's a next-gen title at this point.
I also don't think Blizzard or Bethesda are particularly good examples of game studios "milking" it. Sure you can use the "new IP" filter to describe those who are "milking" and those who aren't, but to me it's ok to reuse existing IP if there's a significant new spin to it (rather than beating a dead horse). Take Doom 4 (2016) as an example from Bethesda via id, rather than being a knockoff it totally revived the se…
To be honest, I was trying to respond in good faith and not consider other Zenimax/BGS properties outside of Bethesda proper. And even they're doing Starfield, as I mentioned.
Fallout 76 seems to kinda suck, but that's one game.
Re: On Shutting Down
#49I don't know Aaron at all, but I'm curious about what kind of bonafides you must have to be a Partner at YC. Do they mean partner in the financial sense (ie: he bought into it) or in an operational sense? If it's the latter, at first glance there's a bit of strange optics to have someone in that role whose only notable experience to my knowledge in the startup world ended in failure.
Sam Altman is the President of Y Combinator, and that was roughly his experience as well. YC does not consider having a billion dollar exit to be a requirement for advising and picking billion dollar startups. Neither do most VCs I’d guess.
In some ways it may be counterintuitive, but in others it makes sense. A successful founder only has a single anecdote. Someone running an incubator has something much closer to empirical data. You can only run 1 experiment at a time, while they can have hundreds or thousands.
Also, you don’t necessarily need talent executing in a specific domain in order to recognize it in others.
Re: On Shutting Down
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a great idea. We've thought about this a fair amount but have not yet found the right solution to implement.
In my imagination this would initially be like your SAFE template or perhaps a checklist. A legally vetted document that tries to take into account the interests of both founders and investors while covering the important bases. I'm glad it's being thought about one way or another!
> tries to take into account the interests of both founders and investors
Customers first, employees second, founders third, investors last. You may want to think over why the last two are in that order, my reasons are simple: investors know the risks going in, and they will not eat one sandwich less. Founders need to be able to get on with their lives too.