3 ms·

It's a pleasure to see DHH pat himself on the back each time his stopped clock overlaps with the hour. He shows the palpable schadenfreude of a man, sitting on

by vonnik 10y ago

It's a pleasure to see DHH pat himself on the back each time his stopped clock overlaps with the hour. He shows the palpable schadenfreude of a man, sitting on the sidelines, who won't shut up about the players in the game. But I notice another flaw to his prose aside from the self-congratulations. Many people who stumble into a certain amount of fame and adulation, like him, get sloppy when they write. They start to repeat themselves. They don't offer evidence to back up their claims. They don't dig deeper than the insight they offered in the last five columns. In short, they don't do the work any more. DHH's post show all those symptoms. He lacks a good editor, and probably thinks he doesn't need one. It might be interesting, for those who want to do the work, to consider why VCs invested more than $120M in Ev. One answer is that VCs tend to invest in strong founding teams, and he is about as strong as a founding team gets. Personally, I would never invest in a media company, but abstracting away from the sector, Ev looks like a very good bet. Secondly, investments fail all the time. Medium might be one of those. Our understanding of the world doesn't change much if that's the case. None of this is really news.

untog 10y ago
> Personally, I would never invest in a media company, but abstracting away from the sector, Ev looks like a very good bet. Which is absurd. "The chocolate teapot industry is difficult, but boy, Ev really knows what he's doing, even though he hasn't actually made a chocolate teapot before". Silicon Valley has the strangest issue with personality cults sometimes.
- vonnik 10y ago
  The absurdity conceals a reality you don't understand yet, which is that VCs often have to make investments not according to their deep understanding of a specific market, since there are too many markets to study, but by using a few signals that apply to all startups. Those are traction with users, social proof from other investors, and the track record of the founders. Startups are all organizations in search of a business model, as Steve Blank puts it. So you want someone leading the organization who is adaptable enough to figure that out, no matter what initial idea they start with. That's why VCs go with strong founders.
adamlett 10y ago
It's a pleasure to see DHH pat himself on the back each time his stopped clock overlaps with the hour. I don't get this metaphor. How is DHH's clock stopped? As far as I know, he has a very successful business, while leading an exciting lifestyle (he drives racing cars!), and he also heads a wildly successful open source project. I can think of few other besides perhaps Marc Zuckerberg, who is winning in life to that extent. Many people who stumble into a certain amount of fame and adulation, like him, get sloppy when they write. They start to repeat themselves. They don't offer evidence to back up their claims. They don't dig deeper than the insight they offered in the last five columns It doesn't seem like you're disagreeing with him though. It might be interesting, for those who want to do the work, to consider why VCs invested more than $120M in Ev You're completely missing the point! We all know why it makes sense from the perspective of the VCs. DHH is writing from the perspective of a founder, and the deal makes a lot less sense from that perspective. VCs make many bets, expecting to lose most, but win big on a few. The founders however, don't get to make more than a few bets, and the odds of winning one are very low. Secondly, investments fail all the time. Medium might be one of those. Our understanding of the world doesn't change much if that's the case. None of this is really news. What a cynical way to look at this. Sure, the VCs will be fine if and when Medium fails, but it will have an impact on a other lot people: employees, who've spend years of their career for nothing and whose stock options are now worthless, and customers who have come to depend on the product.
- vonnik 10y ago
  DHH's clock is stopped because he keeps saying the same thing again and again: don't raise VC. When a startup fails that raises VC, he points out how right he was. When a startup succeeds that raises VC, he says nothing. In fact, most startups are default dead and raising VC doesn't change that fundamental fact -- but it does give them what is essentially proxy revenue so they have time to figure out how to make real money. There is a very long line of people between Mark Zuckerberg and DHH who are "winning at life", as you put it. Without VC money, Ev would have had a hard time getting attention and traction for Medium, which is what he needed to test out his idea. That is true for many founders. VC money is their ticket to real-life business school. An expectation of Medium failing is just an instantiation of a more general expectation that startups will fail. It's not that cruel, really. The employees worked for a well-known brand and are still in the hottest job market in the US. We should not weep too much for them.

by vonnik 10y ago

untog 10y ago

> Personally, I would never invest in a media company, but abstracting away from the sector, Ev looks like a very good bet. Which is absurd. "The chocolate teapot industry is difficult, but boy, Ev really knows what he's doing, even though he hasn't actually made a chocolate teapot before". Silicon Valley has the strangest issue with personality cults sometimes.

vonnik 10y ago
The absurdity conceals a reality you don't understand yet, which is that VCs often have to make investments not according to their deep understanding of a specific market, since there are too many markets to study, but by using a few signals that apply to all startups. Those are traction with users, social proof from other investors, and the track record of the founders. Startups are all organizations in search of a business model, as Steve Blank puts it. So you want someone leading the organization who is adaptable enough to figure that out, no matter what initial idea they start with. That's why VCs go with strong founders.

adamlett 10y ago

It's a pleasure to see DHH pat himself on the back each time his stopped clock overlaps with the hour. I don't get this metaphor. How is DHH's clock stopped? As far as I know, he has a very successful business, while leading an exciting lifestyle (he drives racing cars!), and he also heads a wildly successful open source project. I can think of few other besides perhaps Marc Zuckerberg, who is winning in life to that extent. Many people who stumble into a certain amount of fame and adulation, like him, get sloppy when they write. They start to repeat themselves. They don't offer evidence to back up their claims. They don't dig deeper than the insight they offered in the last five columns It doesn't seem like you're disagreeing with him though. It might be interesting, for those who want to do the work, to consider why VCs invested more than $120M in Ev You're completely missing the point! We all know why it makes sense from the perspective of the VCs. DHH is writing from the perspective of a founder, and the deal makes a lot less sense from that perspective. VCs make many bets, expecting to lose most, but win big on a few. The founders however, don't get to make more than a few bets, and the odds of winning one are very low. Secondly, investments fail all the time. Medium might be one of those. Our understanding of the world doesn't change much if that's the case. None of this is really news. What a cynical way to look at this. Sure, the VCs will be fine if and when Medium fails, but it will have an impact on a other lot people: employees, who've spend years of their career for nothing and whose stock options are now worthless, and customers who have come to depend on the product.

vonnik 10y ago
DHH's clock is stopped because he keeps saying the same thing again and again: don't raise VC. When a startup fails that raises VC, he points out how right he was. When a startup succeeds that raises VC, he says nothing. In fact, most startups are default dead and raising VC doesn't change that fundamental fact -- but it does give them what is essentially proxy revenue so they have time to figure out how to make real money. There is a very long line of people between Mark Zuckerberg and DHH who are "winning at life", as you put it. Without VC money, Ev would have had a hard time getting attention and traction for Medium, which is what he needed to test out his idea. That is true for many founders. VC money is their ticket to real-life business school. An expectation of Medium failing is just an instantiation of a more general expectation that startups will fail. It's not that cruel, really. The employees worked for a well-known brand and are still in the hottest job market in the US. We should not weep too much for them.