3 ms·

Can you give an example (business -> success in software) without outside capital investment? Most of the time the sequence is software -> success -> business,

by jack9 9y ago

Can you give an example (business -> success in software) without outside capital investment? Most of the time the sequence is software -> success -> business, and the event chain is exceedingly rare.

WalterBright 9y ago
My own companies (Zortech, Digital Mars). Id Software. I believe Microsoft borrowed $5,000 (outside investment, but it's not remotely "considerable").
- Mediterraneo10 9y ago
  Saying “my own companies” only proves my point. You are risking your own personal assets only, while a coop structure would involve risk for everyone. Furthermore, you are founding a small business that you hope to eventually grow in some direction. That is very different from a whole set of workers founding a business where they wish to continue doing the same work they were doing before, only on a coop basis.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >You are risking your own personal assets only, while a coop structure would involve risk for everyone. That would actual make risks smaller, as the investment and risk is spread across more people. >Furthermore, you are founding a small business that you hope to eventually grow in some direction. That is very different from a whole set of workers founding a business where they wish to continue doing the same work they were doing before, only on a coop basis. That's both not accurate (in the first part) and a shifting of goal-posts. Who said Walter founded a business to try whatever and "eventually grow in some direction"? He had specific things in mind for the business to do, and pursued those. Second, and inversely, who said people doing co-ops are against pivoting and trying stuff? That they "wish to continue doing the same work they were doing before" is a new, arbitrary, constraint. Heck, people could start co-ops a) without having worked before, b) with people from different backgrounds, where the "same work they did before" doesn't apply, c) with people wishing to do something different than what they were doing before, not just with a different organizational model (e.g. build software of type X instead of working on mindless features upper management demands).
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    I'm sure you can talk yourself into believing it cannot be done. Heck, with my companies, I was universally told it was not possible for me to do them.
coldtea 9y ago
Maybe you only consider as "software business" the kind of "software businesses" of VC fame today, like Facebook, Google, and the tons of web based ones, where huge investments are needed for the scaling and infrastructure? I think the parent has in the mind the more traditional (but still widely present outside the VC echo chamber) model of a company writing some software package and selling it. (Of course some people don't believe making $5 or $10 or $100 millions a year, as successful such companies do, qualifies as a success, but that's another story).
jdietrich 9y ago
Fog Creek, 37 Signals, GitHub, Mailchimp, WooThemes, AppSumo, Grasshopper... There's a very well worn path from consultancy -> productized consulting -> success in software or day gig -> side project -> success in software. Patio11 bangs on about it incessantly, because he's completely right - the majority of HN readers are more than capable of launching a successful SaaS business without quitting their day job or taking a huge lump of VC.
- frubar 9y ago
  Sure, the problem is always the idea. I don't know how many more times someone can make another bingo card maker or time scheduling system and have it still work.
- jack9 9y ago
  I'll agree to disagree. For example, github certainly did use a chunk of capital. Tom Preston-Werner, Chris Wanstrath, and PJ Hyett spent quite a bit. You may not care about the amount here on YC, but it's a non-trivial barrier, regardless.

by jack9 9y ago

WalterBright 9y ago

My own companies (Zortech, Digital Mars). Id Software. I believe Microsoft borrowed $5,000 (outside investment, but it's not remotely "considerable").

Mediterraneo10 9y ago
Saying “my own companies” only proves my point. You are risking your own personal assets only, while a coop structure would involve risk for everyone. Furthermore, you are founding a small business that you hope to eventually grow in some direction. That is very different from a whole set of workers founding a business where they wish to continue doing the same work they were doing before, only on a coop basis.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >You are risking your own personal assets only, while a coop structure would involve risk for everyone. That would actual make risks smaller, as the investment and risk is spread across more people. >Furthermore, you are founding a small business that you hope to eventually grow in some direction. That is very different from a whole set of workers founding a business where they wish to continue doing the same work they were doing before, only on a coop basis. That's both not accurate (in the first part) and a shifting of goal-posts. Who said Walter founded a business to try whatever and "eventually grow in some direction"? He had specific things in mind for the business to do, and pursued those. Second, and inversely, who said people doing co-ops are against pivoting and trying stuff? That they "wish to continue doing the same work they were doing before" is a new, arbitrary, constraint. Heck, people could start co-ops a) without having worked before, b) with people from different backgrounds, where the "same work they did before" doesn't apply, c) with people wishing to do something different than what they were doing before, not just with a different organizational model (e.g. build software of type X instead of working on mindless features upper management demands).
- WalterBright 9y ago
  I'm sure you can talk yourself into believing it cannot be done. Heck, with my companies, I was universally told it was not possible for me to do them.

coldtea 9y ago

Maybe you only consider as "software business" the kind of "software businesses" of VC fame today, like Facebook, Google, and the tons of web based ones, where huge investments are needed for the scaling and infrastructure? I think the parent has in the mind the more traditional (but still widely present outside the VC echo chamber) model of a company writing some software package and selling it. (Of course some people don't believe making $5 or $10 or $100 millions a year, as successful such companies do, qualifies as a success, but that's another story).

jdietrich 9y ago

Fog Creek, 37 Signals, GitHub, Mailchimp, WooThemes, AppSumo, Grasshopper... There's a very well worn path from consultancy -> productized consulting -> success in software or day gig -> side project -> success in software. Patio11 bangs on about it incessantly, because he's completely right - the majority of HN readers are more than capable of launching a successful SaaS business without quitting their day job or taking a huge lump of VC.

frubar 9y ago
Sure, the problem is always the idea. I don't know how many more times someone can make another bingo card maker or time scheduling system and have it still work.
jack9 9y ago
I'll agree to disagree. For example, github certainly did use a chunk of capital. Tom Preston-Werner, Chris Wanstrath, and PJ Hyett spent quite a bit. You may not care about the amount here on YC, but it's a non-trivial barrier, regardless.