5 ms·

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? A

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.
- adamlett 10y ago
  The underlying premise of what you write, seems to be that money is the only yardstick that matters. That is why you patronisingly write that there is a very long line of people between Mark Zuckerberg and DHH who are "winning at life", even though the reason I referenced Mark Zuckerberg specifically was that he seems like a rare person who succeeds in business and apparently manages to balance that with the rest of his life (hats of to him for taking 2 months of paternity leave). It is why you dismiss the notion that the people who worked hard on a failed product, could have anything to be sorry about as long as they are still able to get a high paying job in the next hot startup. And its why you disregard the part of DHH's criticism that doesn't talk about whether or not your business will stand a smaller or greater chance of "making it", but warns about how dissatisfying it is to be a founder and not have total control, and about how the pressure to strike it big or go busto sucks all the fun out of having a business. Which is fine, I guess, and certainly explains why you wouldn't be impressed by someone like DHH. I for my part find DHH's opinion both interesting and refreshing.
  - vonnik 10y ago
    > The underlying premise of what you write, seems to be that money is the only yardstick that matters. That's not what I said at all, and it does not reflect what I think, but it does smack of the presumptuous and dogmatic pigeon-holing that DHH often commits. Money is not the only thing that matters, but it is a thread that runs through most endeavors in tech and all venture undertakings and businesses. Control is a big issue. And so is survival. Sometimes to you give up the first to achieve the second. That usually happens by degrees. I am part of a venture-funded startup and well aware of the tradeoffs. I found DHH's perspective interesting the first time, but he has not done a lot to hold my attention since that initial exposure.

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.

adamlett 10y ago
The underlying premise of what you write, seems to be that money is the only yardstick that matters. That is why you patronisingly write that there is a very long line of people between Mark Zuckerberg and DHH who are "winning at life", even though the reason I referenced Mark Zuckerberg specifically was that he seems like a rare person who succeeds in business and apparently manages to balance that with the rest of his life (hats of to him for taking 2 months of paternity leave). It is why you dismiss the notion that the people who worked hard on a failed product, could have anything to be sorry about as long as they are still able to get a high paying job in the next hot startup. And its why you disregard the part of DHH's criticism that doesn't talk about whether or not your business will stand a smaller or greater chance of "making it", but warns about how dissatisfying it is to be a founder and not have total control, and about how the pressure to strike it big or go busto sucks all the fun out of having a business. Which is fine, I guess, and certainly explains why you wouldn't be impressed by someone like DHH. I for my part find DHH's opinion both interesting and refreshing.
- vonnik 10y ago
  > The underlying premise of what you write, seems to be that money is the only yardstick that matters. That's not what I said at all, and it does not reflect what I think, but it does smack of the presumptuous and dogmatic pigeon-holing that DHH often commits. Money is not the only thing that matters, but it is a thread that runs through most endeavors in tech and all venture undertakings and businesses. Control is a big issue. And so is survival. Sometimes to you give up the first to achieve the second. That usually happens by degrees. I am part of a venture-funded startup and well aware of the tradeoffs. I found DHH's perspective interesting the first time, but he has not done a lot to hold my attention since that initial exposure.