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

91–100 of 119 posts

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#91

Post by randallsquared »

alxbrun wrote: post #17

I recently sold my company and I agree with Jake. What most commenters don't understand, in my opinion, is that real entrepreneurs don't start their company to get rich. If getting rich is your priority, become an investment banker (If you really want to code, make some automatic trading algorithms and financial models for investment bankers.) In that regard, selling your company is, very often, a failure. In my expe…

> If getting rich is your priority, become an investment banker

People keep saying this, but it's a whole different category of thing than "become a programmer". You can't start with no particular skills and no education, work hard at learning for three months, and get a job as an investment banker (or, if it's possible, it's not so easy as to be a common route to investment banking, like it is for programming).

Being an investment banker requires knowing people; being a top programmer only requires knowing stuff.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#92

Post by epsylon »

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…

> Valve can pull this off, they are a game company, always building the next great game

Ironically enough, Valve hasn't created a game for years. These days they are mosty a platform (Steam) company rather than a game studio.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#93

Post by JoeAltmaier »

jlodwick wrote: post #55
jsherry wrote: post #11

I don't begrudge this author his wealth or his page views. But this piece isn't the least bit serious. Ten times out of ten, he'd take his buyout over again. The only thing that concerns me is that somebody might actually take this post to heart and destroy his or her chances of joining the ranks of the author should the right opportunity present itself.

> Ten times out of ten, he'd take his buyout over again. How do you know that?

...and how did the OP know what our proper ambitions are? Read it all as an estimation of human nature, not a deconstruction of the author.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#94

Post by eli_gottlieb »

niggler wrote: post #34
DannoHung wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cuz he wants to get rich or die trying. To which I would say: Seriously dude, why didn't you go into iBanking if you're so shit hot and what you really care about is stacks on stacks on stacks.

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 thought everyone knew that the expected value of a start-up is positive but small?

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#95

Post by eli_gottlieb »

sliverstorm wrote: post #19
mindcrime wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reality it is an option, but given the artificially constrained "world" we're dealing with in this article, it made sense to skip that to make a point. Also, depending on what you are trying to accomplish, it might not make sense, depending on your liquidity needs. It's one thing to own a big chunk of a company which is actually very valuable, but quite another when you do not have access to that money in order to…

It's one thing to own a big chunk of a company which is actually very valuable, but quite another when you do not have access to that money in order to actually, ya know, do stuff Further illustration of exactly the sort of strange mindset I'm talking about. This mindset where a business does not exist to make a profit, oh no, but to be sold to others for a profit. The origin of business is to turn profits for the in…

The whole economy has been oriented to advantage capital-gains over revenues, profits, and dividends. Sorry.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#96

Post by pinaceae »

observation: companies get big and successful if the founder is not driven by money, but by the desire to be right (and prove it to others).

however, this does not mean that every companies main goal needs to be to get big. if you're driven by other desires, your style of business will follow. be aware of what you want, visualize it, this makes it far less frustrating.

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#97

Post by mej10 »

epsylon wrote: post #92
mbell wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Valve can pull this off, they are a game company, always building the next great game Ironically enough, Valve hasn't created a game for years. These days they are mosty a platform (Steam) company rather than a game studio.

I agree that they are mostly a platform, but they have had at least one game come out every year (except 2002) since it started.

Recent ones: Portal 2 - 2011; Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - 2012; Dota 2 (to be released) - 2013

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#98

Post by Swannie »

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…

Since when do they have to be a lifestyle company? Hire a CEO with mandate to grow the company, and go start the next one...

Re: An acquisition is always a failure

#99

Post by hobs »

jasonkester wrote: post #85
mindcrime wrote: post #3

No, no, a thousand times no. This is complete bullshit. I'm sorry, but you lost me at: The proper ambition for a tech entrepreneur should be to join the ranks of the great tech companies, or, at least, to create a profitable, independent company beloved by employees, customers, and shareholders. Nobody, not you, not my mom or dad, not "God", not Linus Torvalds, not Bill Gates, not the Queen of England, not the Dali L…

Indeed. This whole article seems like it must be an elaborate HN Karma Lottery, where the first person to read the headline then post the above comment will immediately walk away with 300 points. The conclusion is so obviously false that it doesn't even require saying as much. If somebody ever offers to buy one of my businesses for a price that makes me happy, I'm going to consider that a win. And I'll let the parent…

I think if you read the post a different way, what you will find is that the writer had an emotional connection to success and to doing something interesting, and I think he valued that more than the money he got, because as he said, his boss was dropping 50 thousand dollar checks on his desk while he was coding something.

You can see it when he speaks about the media companies paying attention and trying out all his ideas, both of those are measures of respect and acknowledgment that his/their ideas were useful and a positive contribution to society.

If anything, I read this as a warning that "life isn't just about stacking bills" and that money is a means to accomplishing the goals you set before yourself. If you short circuit the fun you are having for money, you either will find something else that makes you happy, or you will pine for the meaning in your life that you lost, and write this article.

Post reply on HN