3 ms·

It isn't about product success, it's about company success. Even for one-trick-monkey companies like Android (see how their prior sale to Microsoft went... sma

by seiji 11y ago

It isn't about product success, it's about company success. Even for one-trick-monkey companies like Android (see how their prior sale to Microsoft went... smashing success)—selling a company is the literal death of the company and the absence of success outside of private financial engineering.

jacquesm 11y ago
I think you're stuck in a groove of your own making. Selling a company is not a 'literal death' because a company never was 'literally alive'. It is merely a convenient fiction that allows multiple people to work together and to somewhat fairly share the proceeds. Survival of a company is never an inherent goal. Survival of a product can be such a goal. Companies are utterly un-important, they are simply vehicles.
- seiji 11y ago
  It's difficult to buy stock in a product. It's difficult to make an index fund of products. It's difficult to retire on "product dividends." Companies exist as an attempt to get all the money in the world, and most fail that goal. Apple is pretty close. Refusal to acknowledge failure as failure is pathological insanity. Getting paid to fail (or to "soft land" and save face on an outright failure) doesn't mean the fail didn't happen.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > It's difficult to make an index fund of products. Well, that's what I said, companies are vehicles. > It's difficult to retire on "product dividends. But you can retire on corporate dividends. And when a companies shares are acquired you either get money or shares in the acquiring company. > Companies exist as an attempt to get all the money in the world How do you square that with 'it is hard to retire on product dividends'? Companies pay out dividends to their shareholders. Companies clearly do not exist to 'get all the money in the world' because then the economy would grind to a halt. > and most fail that goal. All companies fail that goal. They fail every time they buy new resources, pay out salaries, rent offices, pay out dividends and so on. In fact, the worst thing for a company is to have a whole pile of cash and nothing to do with it, that's money that is not currently working for the company in a meaningful way. That's why companies tend to manage their liquid reserves very carefully. > Apple is pretty close. Close to getting all the money in the world? No, not even remotely close. And even all that money that Apple has is indirectly owned by the shareholders of Apple. Either Apple will have to spend it or they will have to pay out. Having it sit there does them no good. > Refusal to acknowledge failure as failure is pathological insanity. Are you calling me insane in a roundabout way? > Getting paid to fail (or to "soft land" and save face on an outright failure) doesn't mean the fail didn't happen. Oh, that happens. But it's pretty rare. But better than chapter 11 if that's the alternative.
    - seiji 11y ago
      Are you calling me insane in a roundabout way? It takes one to know one. But it's pretty rare. Pretty rare? That's back to the beginning, because every acquisition means the bought company has explicitly failed to become "real" in a make-more-than-we-spend (and continually grow the "make more") sense. But better than chapter 11 if that's the alternative. I'd rather see 20-somethings lose everything and learn tough, introspective, life changing lessons, than see them running around with their "soft landing" $10 million paydays just because they had the right connections.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        > It takes one to know one. I think we're done here.
- scott_karana 11y ago
  In any case, it's clear that companies succeeding are never really the goal. ;) Either the founders/investors/employees succeed, or their product succeeds, but the company can never succeed absent of one/both of the above.
notacoward 11y ago
I think many founders would disagree that company success matters more than product success. A lot of companies are started purely to develop and promote an idea. This is obviously so for companies spun off from academia or from internal projects at other companies, only a bit less obviously for those created around preexisting open-source projects, and not uncommonly for others. Maybe you care more about the company. You certainly shouldn't project your personal beliefs onto others. Many founders would love to see their pet idea continue without the tedium of running a company. Many founders and employees would be similarly happy to trade in the company letterhead for a bigger paycheck. It's only "selling out" if one was more in love with the idea of the company than with the idea of the product, and frankly I can see few reasons other than ego for that to be the case.

by seiji 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago

I think you're stuck in a groove of your own making. Selling a company is not a 'literal death' because a company never was 'literally alive'. It is merely a convenient fiction that allows multiple people to work together and to somewhat fairly share the proceeds. Survival of a company is never an inherent goal. Survival of a product can be such a goal. Companies are utterly un-important, they are simply vehicles.

seiji 11y ago
It's difficult to buy stock in a product. It's difficult to make an index fund of products. It's difficult to retire on "product dividends." Companies exist as an attempt to get all the money in the world, and most fail that goal. Apple is pretty close. Refusal to acknowledge failure as failure is pathological insanity. Getting paid to fail (or to "soft land" and save face on an outright failure) doesn't mean the fail didn't happen.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > It's difficult to make an index fund of products. Well, that's what I said, companies are vehicles. > It's difficult to retire on "product dividends. But you can retire on corporate dividends. And when a companies shares are acquired you either get money or shares in the acquiring company. > Companies exist as an attempt to get all the money in the world How do you square that with 'it is hard to retire on product dividends'? Companies pay out dividends to their shareholders. Companies clearly do not exist to 'get all the money in the world' because then the economy would grind to a halt. > and most fail that goal. All companies fail that goal. They fail every time they buy new resources, pay out salaries, rent offices, pay out dividends and so on. In fact, the worst thing for a company is to have a whole pile of cash and nothing to do with it, that's money that is not currently working for the company in a meaningful way. That's why companies tend to manage their liquid reserves very carefully. > Apple is pretty close. Close to getting all the money in the world? No, not even remotely close. And even all that money that Apple has is indirectly owned by the shareholders of Apple. Either Apple will have to spend it or they will have to pay out. Having it sit there does them no good. > Refusal to acknowledge failure as failure is pathological insanity. Are you calling me insane in a roundabout way? > Getting paid to fail (or to "soft land" and save face on an outright failure) doesn't mean the fail didn't happen. Oh, that happens. But it's pretty rare. But better than chapter 11 if that's the alternative.
  - seiji 11y ago
    Are you calling me insane in a roundabout way? It takes one to know one. But it's pretty rare. Pretty rare? That's back to the beginning, because every acquisition means the bought company has explicitly failed to become "real" in a make-more-than-we-spend (and continually grow the "make more") sense. But better than chapter 11 if that's the alternative. I'd rather see 20-somethings lose everything and learn tough, introspective, life changing lessons, than see them running around with their "soft landing" $10 million paydays just because they had the right connections.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      > It takes one to know one. I think we're done here.
scott_karana 11y ago
In any case, it's clear that companies succeeding are never really the goal. ;) Either the founders/investors/employees succeed, or their product succeeds, but the company can never succeed absent of one/both of the above.

notacoward 11y ago

I think many founders would disagree that company success matters more than product success. A lot of companies are started purely to develop and promote an idea. This is obviously so for companies spun off from academia or from internal projects at other companies, only a bit less obviously for those created around preexisting open-source projects, and not uncommonly for others. Maybe you care more about the company. You certainly shouldn't project your personal beliefs onto others. Many founders would love to see their pet idea continue without the tedium of running a company. Many founders and employees would be similarly happy to trade in the company letterhead for a bigger paycheck. It's only "selling out" if one was more in love with the idea of the company than with the idea of the product, and frankly I can see few reasons other than ego for that to be the case.