4 ms·

You might be copping downvotes because people think your arguments that he's "not very capable" and "is bad at business execution" don't hold up?

by prawn 10y ago

wslh 10y ago
Business capabilities are judged by $$$ even when chance plays a big role. There is no signal of turn around.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Well well. Who knows where twitter would have been now if it wasn't for Jack Dorsey. With a product so boring (IMO) that the only two interesting things about it (again IMO) are the massive hype and the resulting massive scale, just keeping the hype machine running is quite a feat IMO ;-) (Yeah, when I first saw it I saw massive potential: kind of a giant global event/message bus with a mix of more or less personal text messages, machine2machine communications etc etc. I thought the first thing they would do would be adding channels so you could separate various topics, paid subscriptions for internal company discussions etc etc. Instead they doubled down on efficient distribution of spam and drivel :-/)
  - wslh 10y ago
    > Well well. Who knows where twitter would have been now if it wasn't for Jack Dorsey. 100% agree but now the company is in another stage, it is a public company and it is scrutinized with different standards.
talmand 10y ago
As a third party I would be interested in hearing why others feel the arguments don't hold up. Just simply clicking the downvote button doesn't make for an interesting discussion.
- askldfhjkasfhd 10y ago
  The overwhelming opinion* seems to be that he's brilliant at what he does. The post said it's obvious he's bad at business. If it's really that obvious, how did everyone else get things so wrong? A more transparent post would have said something like "Based on my world view, assumptions, and preconceptions, he's bad at business. The common narrative of Dorsey is XYZ. Here's why that's wrong." Saying "it's obvious" when you're expressing an uncommon opinion doesn't set a good tone for a discussion. Makes it seem like "I'm smart they're dumb I don't need to explain my statement that runs counter to conventional wisdom". * Not saying it's right, just that this is what the Twitter board / media / insiders / VCs /etc. seem to think.
  - talmand 10y ago
    That's not actually a response to my statement, even though it may be true. You're just providing an excuse to downvote without bothering to engage in discussion as to why to downvote. I want to hear the reasons for the downvote. Just thinking I can downvote and not respond because of the "obvious" problems of the statement is just as bad as your example of saying "it's obvious" about an uncommon opinion is not good for discussion. You're just telling me "it's obvious" why the other guy's "it's obvious" is wrong.
    - askldfhjkasfhd 10y ago
      Back up the bus - I didn't downvote. I start a new HN account well before I ever get that invested. There really wasn't an argument put forth beyond "he's bad at business, can't you see it's obvious". His tone and lack of content other than an unsubstantiated opinion are why there was no interesting discussion. I never said "it's obvious" in any way shape or form, but I do believe this is my stop. Have a nice day.
      - wslh 10y ago
        > His tone and lack of content other than an unsubstantiated opinion are why there was no interesting discussion. It was not unsubstantiated. If I define a good business as a business with profits, this definition has a lot of substance. Jack Dorsey obviously achieved a lot of personal success and money from Twitter, I am not blind about his amazing achievements. Amazing because they are statistically difficult to obtain at this scale. BUT, being a public company is a different stage of the game. As an startup you can be amazing while the finances are hidden but when you are public you need to build a sustainable business and this is not happening.

You might be copping downvotes because people think your arguments that he's "not very capable" and "is bad at business execution" don't hold up?

by prawn 10y ago

You might be copping downvotes because people think your arguments that he's "not very capable" and "is bad at business execution" don't hold up?

wslh 10y ago

Business capabilities are judged by $$$ even when chance plays a big role. There is no signal of turn around.

reitanqild 10y ago
Well well. Who knows where twitter would have been now if it wasn't for Jack Dorsey. With a product so boring (IMO) that the only two interesting things about it (again IMO) are the massive hype and the resulting massive scale, just keeping the hype machine running is quite a feat IMO ;-) (Yeah, when I first saw it I saw massive potential: kind of a giant global event/message bus with a mix of more or less personal text messages, machine2machine communications etc etc. I thought the first thing they would do would be adding channels so you could separate various topics, paid subscriptions for internal company discussions etc etc. Instead they doubled down on efficient distribution of spam and drivel :-/)
- wslh 10y ago
  > Well well. Who knows where twitter would have been now if it wasn't for Jack Dorsey. 100% agree but now the company is in another stage, it is a public company and it is scrutinized with different standards.

talmand 10y ago

As a third party I would be interested in hearing why others feel the arguments don't hold up. Just simply clicking the downvote button doesn't make for an interesting discussion.

askldfhjkasfhd 10y ago
The overwhelming opinion* seems to be that he's brilliant at what he does. The post said it's obvious he's bad at business. If it's really that obvious, how did everyone else get things so wrong? A more transparent post would have said something like "Based on my world view, assumptions, and preconceptions, he's bad at business. The common narrative of Dorsey is XYZ. Here's why that's wrong." Saying "it's obvious" when you're expressing an uncommon opinion doesn't set a good tone for a discussion. Makes it seem like "I'm smart they're dumb I don't need to explain my statement that runs counter to conventional wisdom". * Not saying it's right, just that this is what the Twitter board / media / insiders / VCs /etc. seem to think.
- talmand 10y ago
  That's not actually a response to my statement, even though it may be true. You're just providing an excuse to downvote without bothering to engage in discussion as to why to downvote. I want to hear the reasons for the downvote. Just thinking I can downvote and not respond because of the "obvious" problems of the statement is just as bad as your example of saying "it's obvious" about an uncommon opinion is not good for discussion. You're just telling me "it's obvious" why the other guy's "it's obvious" is wrong.
  - askldfhjkasfhd 10y ago
    Back up the bus - I didn't downvote. I start a new HN account well before I ever get that invested. There really wasn't an argument put forth beyond "he's bad at business, can't you see it's obvious". His tone and lack of content other than an unsubstantiated opinion are why there was no interesting discussion. I never said "it's obvious" in any way shape or form, but I do believe this is my stop. Have a nice day.
    - wslh 10y ago
      > His tone and lack of content other than an unsubstantiated opinion are why there was no interesting discussion. It was not unsubstantiated. If I define a good business as a business with profits, this definition has a lot of substance. Jack Dorsey obviously achieved a lot of personal success and money from Twitter, I am not blind about his amazing achievements. Amazing because they are statistically difficult to obtain at this scale. BUT, being a public company is a different stage of the game. As an startup you can be amazing while the finances are hidden but when you are public you need to build a sustainable business and this is not happening.