6 ms·

That "Reconsider" post was at the top of HN yesterday(1) but it was quickly removed from the front page(2). What a coincidence. DHH's "Reconsider": "Our defini

by trdm 11y ago

That "Reconsider" post was at the top of HN yesterday(1) but it was quickly removed from the front page(2). What a coincidence. DHH's "Reconsider": "Our definition of winning didn’t even include establishing that hallowed sanctity of the natural monopoly!" Sam's "Playbook": "We also ask how the company will one day be a monopoly." (1)https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10506422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10506422 (2)https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10508269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10508269

ekanes 11y ago
There's plenty of room for both models. Lifestyle businesses are awesome. 100% great. But we wouldn't have society-level upgrades like Uber, Twitter or Apple without venture capital. They just don't work any other way.
- billmalarky 11y ago
  Sometimes they do. Wikipedia comes to mind. Your point is still valid though.
- societylevel 11y ago
  I disagree strongly. We have the web because Tim Berners-Lee didn't raise an angel round, so he didn't ask 'how do I monetize' and built an amazing open system. Before him we had CompuServe and other VC backed trash. VC businesses like Twitter and Uber create centralized points of stagnation that seem great at first, but can't innovate the way open systems can. If Twitter was open we wouldn't be wondering if they'll improve their product or who will be CEO, because there'd be a dozen people innovating on it. Instead, because the network is owned by one group of people, that basically doesn't happen. We still get that sort of amazing, eco-system creating innovation when a rare innovator declines VC (wikipedia, bitcoin). But when a VC steps in, the only innovations that flourish are those that benefit the capitalist. Venture capital is, ironically, the enemy of innovation. It doesn't support it; it captures it and restrains it, tying it down with the bonds of capital.
  - rdli 11y ago
    I disagree with the broad characterization of VC as an enemy of innovation. There are plenty of VC-backed companies that don't innovate. There are also plenty of non VC-backed companies that don't innovate either. To name 4: Google, Docker, Tesla, Apple. I'm happy that they were able to raise enough VC that they've innovated and created stuff that I happily use. (Well, I don't own a Tesla. But I've driven one.)
  - rtpg 11y ago
    Tim Berners-Lee didn't bootstrap the web, there was a bunch of money from educational institutions and the goverment and the like. Maybe it's not VCs, but you can't bootstrap everything. Or maybe you can, but it will probably take a lot longer.
    - hakosl 11y ago
      Didnt the guy who wrote clojure "Bootstrap everything", atleast im pretty sure that he worked for a really long time without telling anyone.
  - david927 11y ago
    Well said! What I find funny is that if you make an analogy to music you find exactly where these platitudes lead to. "Great team" like One Direction or Britney Spears. "Make something that people want," such as Hit Me Baby One More Time. Innovation is more like this: "The Velvet Underground's first album only sold a few thousand copies, but everyone who bought one formed a band." [Brian Eno] When I see VC's like Peter Thiel who openly (and correctly) complain about the lack of innovation, I have to scratch my head and think, "Well, then, get out of the way."
  - clearf 11y ago
    It's an interesting point, but I'm wondering how to unpack it. "If Twitter was open... a dozen people innovating on it..." Though not 100% independent of their funding model (loss-aversion bias might lead us to conclude that big companies take less risk), presumably Twitter has at least a dozen people trying to innovate on it? They may not be doing what [parts of] the community wants, but that's not quite the same thing as not innovating.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- brown9-2 11y ago
  How much venture capital did Apple raise before going public in 1980?
- neilk 11y ago
  You're suffering from startup myopia. Things like GPS are society-level upgrades. Uber is just one application of GPS.
  - argonaut 11y ago
    Things like GPS are the result of hundreds of billions of dollars of government spending, much of it going to the military-industrial complex. So yeah.
- trymas 11y ago
  AFAIK, Apple had a single major investment for it's incorporation. And it was a healthy investment, as Apple was making real money really fast. Twitter is flowing in the sea of red and as far as I know never had a dime of profit. Who gives money to twitter by this point? Twitter has a lot of users, but it does not monetise the platform well. Also IMHO, Twitter has waaaay too many employees and I imagine that it's internal processes are very inefficient. Uber is great example of unicorn startup. Though we'll see how it will turn out.
trymas 11y ago
Oh wow, today I learned. This is outrageous, I was so naive of HN community, that things like this are not happening here.
spopejoy 11y ago
Step away from the tinfoil hat. "Reconsider" is still atop the best list. Personally I found this article more interesting than "Reconsider". I mean c'mon, it's trivially true that the humbler road doesn't get the press but is more spiritually satisfying &c &c. Whereas this article brings together valuable knowledge from different domains.

by trdm 11y ago

ekanes 11y ago

There's plenty of room for both models. Lifestyle businesses are awesome. 100% great. But we wouldn't have society-level upgrades like Uber, Twitter or Apple without venture capital. They just don't work any other way.

billmalarky 11y ago
Sometimes they do. Wikipedia comes to mind. Your point is still valid though.
societylevel 11y ago
I disagree strongly. We have the web because Tim Berners-Lee didn't raise an angel round, so he didn't ask 'how do I monetize' and built an amazing open system. Before him we had CompuServe and other VC backed trash. VC businesses like Twitter and Uber create centralized points of stagnation that seem great at first, but can't innovate the way open systems can. If Twitter was open we wouldn't be wondering if they'll improve their product or who will be CEO, because there'd be a dozen people innovating on it. Instead, because the network is owned by one group of people, that basically doesn't happen. We still get that sort of amazing, eco-system creating innovation when a rare innovator declines VC (wikipedia, bitcoin). But when a VC steps in, the only innovations that flourish are those that benefit the capitalist. Venture capital is, ironically, the enemy of innovation. It doesn't support it; it captures it and restrains it, tying it down with the bonds of capital.
- rdli 11y ago
  I disagree with the broad characterization of VC as an enemy of innovation. There are plenty of VC-backed companies that don't innovate. There are also plenty of non VC-backed companies that don't innovate either. To name 4: Google, Docker, Tesla, Apple. I'm happy that they were able to raise enough VC that they've innovated and created stuff that I happily use. (Well, I don't own a Tesla. But I've driven one.)
- rtpg 11y ago
  Tim Berners-Lee didn't bootstrap the web, there was a bunch of money from educational institutions and the goverment and the like. Maybe it's not VCs, but you can't bootstrap everything. Or maybe you can, but it will probably take a lot longer.
  - hakosl 11y ago
    Didnt the guy who wrote clojure "Bootstrap everything", atleast im pretty sure that he worked for a really long time without telling anyone.
- david927 11y ago
  Well said! What I find funny is that if you make an analogy to music you find exactly where these platitudes lead to. "Great team" like One Direction or Britney Spears. "Make something that people want," such as Hit Me Baby One More Time. Innovation is more like this: "The Velvet Underground's first album only sold a few thousand copies, but everyone who bought one formed a band." [Brian Eno] When I see VC's like Peter Thiel who openly (and correctly) complain about the lack of innovation, I have to scratch my head and think, "Well, then, get out of the way."
- clearf 11y ago
  It's an interesting point, but I'm wondering how to unpack it. "If Twitter was open... a dozen people innovating on it..." Though not 100% independent of their funding model (loss-aversion bias might lead us to conclude that big companies take less risk), presumably Twitter has at least a dozen people trying to innovate on it? They may not be doing what [parts of] the community wants, but that's not quite the same thing as not innovating.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
brown9-2 11y ago
How much venture capital did Apple raise before going public in 1980?
neilk 11y ago
You're suffering from startup myopia. Things like GPS are society-level upgrades. Uber is just one application of GPS.
- argonaut 11y ago
  Things like GPS are the result of hundreds of billions of dollars of government spending, much of it going to the military-industrial complex. So yeah.
trymas 11y ago
AFAIK, Apple had a single major investment for it's incorporation. And it was a healthy investment, as Apple was making real money really fast. Twitter is flowing in the sea of red and as far as I know never had a dime of profit. Who gives money to twitter by this point? Twitter has a lot of users, but it does not monetise the platform well. Also IMHO, Twitter has waaaay too many employees and I imagine that it's internal processes are very inefficient. Uber is great example of unicorn startup. Though we'll see how it will turn out.

trymas 11y ago

Oh wow, today I learned. This is outrageous, I was so naive of HN community, that things like this are not happening here.

spopejoy 11y ago

Step away from the tinfoil hat. "Reconsider" is still atop the best list. Personally I found this article more interesting than "Reconsider". I mean c'mon, it's trivially true that the humbler road doesn't get the press but is more spiritually satisfying &c &c. Whereas this article brings together valuable knowledge from different domains.