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

Fridge is Joining Google+ Team

keepitfresh.frid.ge

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 73 posts

Re: Fridge is Joining Google+ Team

#41

Post by AlecSchueler »

badclient wrote: post #21
nadam wrote: post #16

Funny how the startup scene changes. Years ago, Paul Graham wrote essays like 'You weren't meant to have a boss'. Nowadays talent aquisitions are seen as huge successes while (money aside) we are celebrating that some former founders found jobs at big companies. (I am also more pragmatic in this question than years ago, so I am not criticizing anyone.)

Nowdays talent acquisitions are seen as huge successes Citation needed.

See: the congratulations that are invariably offered in threads like these.

Re: Fridge is Joining Google+ Team

#42

Post by zackattack »

pg wrote: post #39
nostrademons wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what the average founder's take is in a talent acquisition. http://ycombinator.com/nums.html indicates that 80% of YC's acquisitions have been for Not chump change by any means, but skilled engineers in Silicon Valley can easily make $250K/year in total compensation. If a startup takes about 3 years of ramen wages to come to fruition and then the founders are locked up for another year while they vest, th…

Yes, talent acquisitions tend to be 1-2m per founder. The founders make more after tax though because they pay long term capital gains tax rather than income tax. A talent acquisition is not usually the founders' first choice. What they get in return for the risk of the startup failing is the chance of a really big success. A talent acquisition is usually a backup plan. As a backup plan it's a pretty good deal. (A ta…

>(A talent acquisition is sometimes the founders' first choice if it happens early enough. Then it's a better deal because the money is divided by less time.)

I thought acquisitions were one of the last surviving relics of indentured servitude, besides universities. My guess is that it's still a better deal when you adjust for risk, likelihood of large success, and fully look at the expected value matrix. Though I'm skeptical that you can really discuss probability in the context of multiple people's talents, without historical data (the best proxy I see is that you were _chosen_ by pg or other tier 1 VC, and said VC has this historical record, etc.)

Re: Fridge is Joining Google+ Team

#43

Post by nostrademons »

akkartik wrote: post #36
nostrademons wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what the average founder's take is in a talent acquisition. http://ycombinator.com/nums.html indicates that 80% of YC's acquisitions have been for Not chump change by any means, but skilled engineers in Silicon Valley can easily make $250K/year in total compensation. If a startup takes about 3 years of ramen wages to come to fruition and then the founders are locked up for another year while they vest, th…

I tend to think of offers in terms of how long I can live on the savings from a single year. If you make 100k and save 20k, you make 200k and save 120k[1]. It's not 2x but 6x. [1] I'm not considering taxes and so on, but the basic idea of leverage still applies.

That's a fair way of looking at it, but again, you need to compare equivalent lifestyles. If a startup founder lives on $30K/year because they were constrained to that for the 3 years they were growing their startup, you should compare that to an employee also living on $30K/year. In both cases, their expenses are negligible compared to their income. The employee banks about 7 years for every year he works (modulo taxes, which are not insignificant), while the startup founder banks nothing for the first 3 years and then banks 60-70 years in the final year.

Re: Fridge is Joining Google+ Team

#45

Post by suhail »

nostrademons wrote: post #34
pg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(money aside) That's the mistake in your reasoning. The money makes a talent acquisition significantly different from getting a job.

I'm curious what the average founder's take is in a talent acquisition. http://ycombinator.com/nums.html indicates that 80% of YC's acquisitions have been for Not chump change by any means, but skilled engineers in Silicon Valley can easily make $250K/year in total compensation. If a startup takes about 3 years of ramen wages to come to fruition and then the founders are locked up for another year while they vest, th…

You should note: founders do make a salary which lowers risk. We have to eat and pay the bills somehow. So the opportunity cost you speak of is simply the net loss of potential salary - startup salary. Founders probably take nothing in a year one, something small in year 2 (50-80), and year 2+ is variable.

Another consideration is you learn a lot more than you generally would at a big company. There's a lot of value in knowledge and many (despite it sounding corny) deem that as invaluable--worth forgoing 100K/year in salary.

Re: Fridge is Joining Google+ Team

#46

Post by badclient »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #41
badclient wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nowdays talent acquisitions are seen as huge successes Citation needed.

See: the congratulations that are invariably offered in threads like these.

Sorry if its just me but I always thought that if you've spent some time around HN, you can tell between talent acquisitions that occur out of need(other option being going dead) and talent acquisitions that occur from a position of power(ie. friendfeed). In the former case, congratulations are still in order for the founders not coming out completely empty handed, but I would not term it as "huge successes".

Congratulations != huge success(in the big picture sense)

Re: Fridge is Joining Google+ Team

#48

Post by prpon »

pg wrote: post #28
nadam wrote: post #16

Funny how the startup scene changes. Years ago, Paul Graham wrote essays like 'You weren't meant to have a boss'. Nowadays talent aquisitions are seen as huge successes while (money aside) we are celebrating that some former founders found jobs at big companies. (I am also more pragmatic in this question than years ago, so I am not criticizing anyone.)

(money aside) That's the mistake in your reasoning. The money makes a talent acquisition significantly different from getting a job.

I wonder how many of these talent acquisitions happen because of being related to YC? There are many startups out there with strong talent. Not many of them get acquired for talent reasons.

How do talent acquisitions happen? Do they usually start with exploring partnership opportunities?

Re: Fridge is Joining Google+ Team

#49

Post by jsavimbi »

onewland wrote: post #38
nostrademons wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what the average founder's take is in a talent acquisition. http://ycombinator.com/nums.html indicates that 80% of YC's acquisitions have been for Not chump change by any means, but skilled engineers in Silicon Valley can easily make $250K/year in total compensation. If a startup takes about 3 years of ramen wages to come to fruition and then the founders are locked up for another year while they vest, th…

$250k easily? I think that's a level of skill that is not at all common. I'm not saying nobody gets paid that all, but developer compensation needs to be more realistically looked at on this forum. I'd say the majority make less than $100k, and $150k or more puts you in the top 5 percentile.

Well, if you're making that magical $100K and you vest after three years for, oh let's say $300K, that'll bring you up to $600K not including benefits and other compensation that could, in theory, make you $250K if you're willing to swallow the opportunity cost of working at $100/yr.

Re: Fridge is Joining Google+ Team

#50

Post by iphoneedbot »

Im a little mad.. because.. products back by YC such as Fridge and JustSpotted have asked us as consumers to believe in their efforts and adopt their products early..

NOW, it appears that these companies just seem like a way to get hired and acquired..

-- You ("the startup") asked us to believe in you and adopt your product and approach -- only to be left with a defunct product

Seems like: "If the going gets tough, --> you sell out" (Literally)

Im not hating.. Im proud that another YC company is moving on to better things.. . but -- seems like a slight break in the trust placed on startups..

how can consumers adopt early if theres a seemingly greater reality that the startup is actually "built to be hired/acquired" /.

Post reply on HN