Live data from Hacker News

Watching Larry Ellison Become Larry Ellison – The DNA of a Winner

steveblank.com

1–10 of 82 posts

Re: Watching Larry Ellison Become Larry Ellison – The DNA of a Winner

#4

"It's not enough to win, all others must fail" This isn't the DNA of a winner, this is the DNA of a sociopath.

I was told a variation of the original quote by a chess master at age < 8 (I loved chess as a kid and took some advanced classes). Thankfully, I don't recall ever acting on such advice.

Re: Watching Larry Ellison Become Larry Ellison – The DNA of a Winner

#5
"Larry was loathe to sell any of the company stock; he generally took a dim view of VCs and preferred to bootstrap"

Which is why 37 years after its founding, and after 28 years as a public company, he still owns 25% of the company (per Bloomberg). All the more remarkable considering Oracle is worth $173 billion.

Re: Watching Larry Ellison Become Larry Ellison – The DNA of a Winner

#6
What a fawning piece of tripe. Uncle Larry's monomania and "others must fail" sociopathy might have worked for Oracle in a particular market and time, but it would be a recipe for utter failure in a modern startup where adaptability and collaboration are more valued. He didn't have unique entrepreneurial DNA. He had some skills that were valuable, others that were deficient, and enough luck that the former outweighed the latter.

Re: Watching Larry Ellison Become Larry Ellison – The DNA of a Winner

#7

"It's not enough to win, all others must fail" This isn't the DNA of a winner, this is the DNA of a sociopath.

If you read Peter Thiel's latest book, his argument is for monopoly over competition.

Which is just another way of saying, all competition must fail.

So far, it's worked for Facebook. They have trampled their competition, or they just buy them.

Re: Watching Larry Ellison Become Larry Ellison – The DNA of a Winner

#8

"Larry was loathe to sell any of the company stock; he generally took a dim view of VCs and preferred to bootstrap" Which is why 37 years after its founding, and after 28 years as a public company, he still owns 25% of the company (per Bloomberg). All the more remarkable considering Oracle is worth $173 billion.

'he generally took a dim view of VCs and preferred to bootstrap"

that's pretty counter-intuitive in today's bubble-blowing tech climate. we praise companies for raising the most money from the hippest VCs rather than customer retention, technology, and market position

Post reply on HN