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

An acquisition is always a failure

pandodaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 119 posts

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#41

Post by niggler »

mindcrime wrote: post #37
niggler wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Many people go into startups just for the profit motive, but I firmly believe that you should start a startup because it is something you want to do or because a side project became too large to continue as a side project (forced to do)

but I firmly believe that you should start a startup because it is something you want to do There's no reason it can't be that and a desire to become wealthy, ya know...

"There's no reason it can't be that and a desire to become wealthy, ya know..."

I take the (apparently quaint) view that you should make money because your product/service provides real value to others. And that if you do provide real value then there's a monetization pathway (by charging those people that you do provide value to).

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#42

Post by nine_k »

I used to think about startups in bovine terms.

Some startups are beef type. These are made to grow as fast as possible, increase the user base by whatever means, without care about long-term health. They hunt for investments, especially big ones. Then, the sooner the better, such a company is sold to a large company and butchered, either to be digested and feed the corporate muscle, or just to remove competition with the big company's product line.

Other startups are milk type. These are grown steadily and sustainably, if slowly, with great care about long-term health. They are usually become profitable early on, at least ramen-profitable. Owners usually reject several acquisition proposals, and are careful with 3rd-party investments so as not to lose control of the company.

I think that a milk-type company has a far better chance to be a long-term success and transform the industry. It may grow huge, like Google, or stay small, like Github or Craiglist.

In rare cases beef-type companies do not die within a large corporation but become an important organ (e.g. Android inside Google), or enjoy a benign neglect (e.g. Instagram inside Facebook). But usually they just die, the way the post explains, or even worse.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#43

Post by whynotbalu »

mbell wrote: post #26
sliverstorm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say I build a company to a point where I could sell for enough that I could walk away with, I don't know, let's call it $10,000,000 USD. The other option is to stay independent and maybe, maybe eventually IPO. This is the part that rankles with me. Why is, "stay privately held and continue to turn a profit year over year" never considered an option? Why is it only "sell" or "IPO"?

It depends on your goal. Even companies that stay privately held and turn a profit year over year end up in many ways being a lifestyle company; Often resulting in stagnation and then slowly erode from the inside. It can work, you can avoid stagnation, but only for a few types of companies / founders. For example Valve can pull this off, they are a game company, always building the next great game, they always have s…

Super thoughtful, very analytical comment.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#44

Post by aneth4 »

There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting into business to make money. Nothing.

There is nothing wrong with discovering a problem you don't have or care about that people are willing to pay to have fixed, slugging through building something to solve that problem, and trying to maximise your profit and minimize your time. There is nothing wrong with working hard in a field you are not passionate about to make money.

How passionate do you think the guy soldering your alarm clock battery to the circuit board in Guangdong China is about his job? He does it to make money for himself and/or his family. Is there something wrong with choosing entrepreneurship with the hope of making a fuck ton more money than that, or are you required to take the job you can get unless you want to build a billion dollar business for shareholders?

Only working on something you are fully passionate about and getting paid well is a luxury not everyone can afford.

There is also nothing wrong with creating a non-profit to help limbless children in Cambodia, taking no salary, and spending all your time in service of others.

In fact, the former can allow you to do the latter, still support your family, and live well yourself.

I agree with mindcrime. And I wonder why so many PandoDaily writers are so full of pomp. And fuck that guy.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#45

Post by mindcrime »

niggler wrote: post #41
mindcrime wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but I firmly believe that you should start a startup because it is something you want to do There's no reason it can't be that and a desire to become wealthy, ya know...

"There's no reason it can't be that and a desire to become wealthy, ya know..." I take the (apparently quaint) view that you should make money because your product/service provides real value to others. And that if you do provide real value then there's a monetization pathway (by charging those people that you do provide value to).

I take the (apparently quaint) view that you should make money because your product/service provides real value to others. And that if you do provide real value then there's a monetization pathway (by charging those people that you do provide value to).

I have to admit, I don't see the connection between that and the blurb you quoted above. I certainly don't disagree with the idea of providing real value, nor with the idea of charging people that you provide value to. In fact, I very recently wrote a rant[1] expressing very much that opinion. So I'm not sure what exactly it is you think we disagree about, if anything.

I'm just saying that launching a startup can be based in both a desire to "do something you enjoy" AND a desire to become wealthy. Exactly which "monetization strategy" you employ is, IMO, up to the founder(s) based on: their goals, market conditions, business circumstances, life circumstances, and probably a bazillion other things.

[1]: http://fogbeam.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-point-of-startup-is-...

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#46

Post by mindcrime »

sliverstorm wrote: post #35
niggler wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Many people go into startups just for the profit motive, but I firmly believe that you should start a startup because it is something you want to do or because a side project became too large to continue as a side project (forced to do)

I feel like HN's focus has changed in that regard. Call me crazy, but I feel like it was less "get-rich" focused a couple years ago.

I feel like HN's focus has changed in that regard. Call me crazy, but I feel like it was less "get-rich" focused a couple years ago.

I dunno... considering that HN was originally "startup news" and that it's run by a company that funds / incubates startups, there's pretty much always been a certain segment of posters who are very into the financial side of things.

What gets me is the people who come along and (seemingly) present this viewpoint that "making money is evil" or "wanting to be rich is a Bad Thing". I don't get it and probably never will. As long as you play by the rules, behave ethically, and are honest, I see no problem with becoming as rich as (you can | you want). What's wrong with, say, wanting to have "fuck you money" so you don't have to live the rest of your life under the thumb of a boss, or worrying about how to pay for repairs if your car breaks down, or what to do if sudden medical expenses arise, etc? Even more so if you build a company, create jobs, and improve the standard of living for others along the way. To me, it's the greatest thing in the world.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#47

Post by niggler »

mindcrime wrote: post #45
niggler wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There's no reason it can't be that and a desire to become wealthy, ya know..." I take the (apparently quaint) view that you should make money because your product/service provides real value to others. And that if you do provide real value then there's a monetization pathway (by charging those people that you do provide value to).

I take the (apparently quaint) view that you should make money because your product/service provides real value to others. And that if you do provide real value then there's a monetization pathway (by charging those people that you do provide value to). I have to admit, I don't see the connection between that and the blurb you quoted above. I certainly don't disagree with the idea of providing real value, nor with th…

I think we disagree on the extent to which "desire to become wealthy" should be a driving factor. I think the state where founders are primary driven by short-term wealth is not appropriate (it is easier to be wealthier in other areas like finance), whereas I take your comments to suggest that you think it's acceptable for making money to be the primary motivation. The views aren't mutually exclusive (timing factors, etc)

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#49

Post by niggler »

mindcrime wrote: post #46
sliverstorm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like HN's focus has changed in that regard. Call me crazy, but I feel like it was less "get-rich" focused a couple years ago.

I feel like HN's focus has changed in that regard. Call me crazy, but I feel like it was less "get-rich" focused a couple years ago. I dunno... considering that HN was originally "startup news" and that it's run by a company that funds / incubates startups, there's pretty much always been a certain segment of posters who are very into the financial side of things. What gets me is the people who come along and (seemin…

'As long as you play by the rules, behave ethically, and are honest, I see no problem with becoming as rich as (you can | you want).'

The rules are questionable at best and we've seen many startups (including some that are funded by YC) act in a manner that some would not consider ethical (I'm reminded of InstallMonetizer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 -- I think a made a few comments there). That suggests people are it in just for the money, which makes the situation worse for the rest of us who are doing startups for something more.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#50

Post by integraton »

mindcrime wrote: post #46
sliverstorm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like HN's focus has changed in that regard. Call me crazy, but I feel like it was less "get-rich" focused a couple years ago.

I feel like HN's focus has changed in that regard. Call me crazy, but I feel like it was less "get-rich" focused a couple years ago. I dunno... considering that HN was originally "startup news" and that it's run by a company that funds / incubates startups, there's pretty much always been a certain segment of posters who are very into the financial side of things. What gets me is the people who come along and (seemin…

There's nothing wrong with making money. The problem is that most tech companies focused from inception on high growth never earn their founders or employees anything remotely resembling "fuck you money."

If you want "fuck you money," go into finance. If you want "fuck you money" and still want to be an entrepreneur, start a financial services or legal firm in one of the many niches in the financial industry. And if you want "fuck you money" and you want to create jobs, tech is probably one of the worst fields to be operating in.

Post reply on HN