6 ms·

For those who prefer reading, or can't reach Youtube, etc. "This is a message to YCombinator companies and hopefuls: if you tell Facebook about your startup be

For those who prefer reading, or can't reach Youtube, etc. "This is a message to YCombinator companies and hopefuls: if you tell Facebook about your startup before you reach critical mass and you get found by Facebook in any way you're an idiot. They will steal your company's ideas and try to get you to take a small price for your company and vision and take a job at Facebook. Which by the way is going to be a job that sucks. Don't do it. It's a scam. It's a trap. It's a trap. It's a trap. Insert Star Wars quip here. It's a trap. IT'S. A. TRAP. End of message."

strlen 16y ago
This sounds completely bizarre. If your ideas are such that they can be stolen and executed upon by others trivially, than a job at Facebook (with a signing bonus) is pretty damn impressive exit.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Say what? Posterous isn't rocket science, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't consider a signing bonus at Facebook impressive.
  - strlen 16y ago
    Posterous is out in the open for everybody to see. Why hasn't Facebook "killed it", then? Understanding user behaviour and preferences is part of what makes something defensible. Not having to build a product to operate at Facebook's scale (and expectation of reliability) at day one is a way to help discover people's preferences, especially for a "new idea".
    - tptacek 16y ago
      There is no startup success that this argument can't attribute to the intangible "understanding behavior and preferences", and no signing-bonus exit that the same argument can't dismiss the same way. My point is simply that there are a lot of very straightforward ideas that merit far more than a signing-bonus exit.
    - 10ren 16y ago
      Can you elaborate on "understanding behavior and preferences" with some example behavior and preferences, please? There are many bases of competitive advantage, but I don't have a clear picture of this one. The main customer-side advantage I see is that your product becomes identified with the idea/technology in the customer mind (perhaps of a tiny niche) - not that it's better than something else, just that it exists. But there's still a problem of getting to this state.
      - strlen 16y ago
        Greenspun has an even better explanation of this than I do: The most reliable source of supranormal profits is superior knowledge of one kind of customer (Way #3). Ideally this will be the kind of customer that larger companies are overlooking. The founders of SAP, for example, were employees of IBM Germany for many years and got exposed to the accounting challenges of large manufacturers. When they quit IBM, they were among the best situated programmers in the world to build an accounting system for manufacturing companies. It is not because these guys were the world's best programmers that SAP is today bringing in $10 billion per year in revenue and has a market capitalization of $60 billion. It is because these guys were the best programmers who understood the problems of their customers. http://philip.greenspun.com/business/startup-tips/ http://philip.greenspun.com/business/startup-tips/
        10ren 16y ago
        Thanks! Domain knowledge - but applying this to a mass market feel a bit mind-bending to me. Of course, it's still problems and knowledge, and so not qualitatively different from those in a specific niche. I guess the misleading thing is that by the time a mass market is mass, they are well-known (or appear to be). As an example, Youtube was once small. And while the consumers were perhaps (?) easy to understand, the producers (who created the value), were a much smaller group, a more specific kind of person, using specific new tech (mobile phones) with specific problems. And it only later grew into a mass market (though I guess arguably the producers are still "one kind of customer".)
- coryl 16y ago
  Not completely true, sometimes being first matters.
  - gnaritas 16y ago
    Most times, it doesn't.
- abraham 16y ago
  Facebook has the money and scale to implement anything they choose to. Trivially or not.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Yes, just like google, right. Google video completely obliterated those youtube upstarts. Oh, wait. That a company has the money and the scale to implement anything they choose to, trivially or not does not mean they will actually succeed in the marketplace. Small companies doing one thing have something big companies do not: relentless focus.
    - codexon 16y ago
      Google could have waited until the bandwidth costs and the lawsuits from Viacom ate them alive. Remember, Youtube hasn't even become profitable yet. Google already had a capable clone. They just lacked the community because they were a late arrival. If Google's Sergey, Larry, or Schmidt were as ruthless as Zuckerberg, I have no doubt that Youtube would have been left to die.
      - zavulon 16y ago
        Google didn't buy Youtube out of goodness of their hearts. If it wasn't them, I'm sure there was plenty of other companies that were looking to purchase, and I'm sure at least some of them have the necessary resources to deal with bandwidth/legal issues
        codexon 16y ago
        I never said Google bought Youtube out of kindness. I said that Google had the option of letting Youtube weaken, and buy them at a discount...or fully letting them die out and have Google Video dominate. Each decision with a different risk/reward ratio. They chose the lowest risk/reward since $1.6 billion is probably a relative drop in the bucket for them.
      - mixmax 16y ago
- randomwalker 16y ago
  Given the timing I think it is pretty clear that he is talking specifically about YCRFS7. If you're building something on top of a platform there is always the danger that the platform provider will decide to incorporate your product as a feature. There is certainly a lot of precedent for this — in recent years Apple, Twitter, and Facebook have all done it.
- javajones 16y ago
  Ideas can always be stolen. We've had so called investors try to rip us off left and right. Don't think Facebook isn't capable of the same.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >Ideas can always be stolen. Ideas can never be stolen. If I have an idea and tell you about it, then you use it, I've still access to that idea and can still use it too. Yes I worked in IP for a time. Yes I'm a pedant. But there is a very important distinction both morally and legally between theft and copying (eg tortuous IP infringement).
    - javajones 16y ago
      Tell that to someone who's had an idea copyrighted/patented and used without their permission.
      - Natsu 16y ago
        You mean like when those guys making the JMRI model train software that had some jerk company take their code without respecting the OSS license, then patented something they'd been doing for years and counter-sued them for infringing that patent when they tried to get them to respect the license? Yeah, I'd call that stolen (or at least 'attempted theft'), because they were about to lose their rights. Thankfully, the JMRI guys won in court, so they got their rights back.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- MichaelApproved 16y ago
  If you want a job at Facebook then apply directly. Building an entire business just to get hired at a company seems excessive and contrary to the reason most people start their own business.
  - strlen 16y ago
    That was (sort of) my point. If you build something fairly trivial and not defensible on its own, "talent acquisition" is a rather good outcome.
jasonmcalacanis 16y ago
here is the full clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWJAkjF9qnY#t=1h14m44s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWJAkjF9qnY#t=1h14m44s
pingswept 16y ago
Minor correction. s/you get found by Facebook/you get involved with Facebook/

strlen 16y ago

This sounds completely bizarre. If your ideas are such that they can be stolen and executed upon by others trivially, than a job at Facebook (with a signing bonus) is pretty damn impressive exit.

tptacek 16y ago
Say what? Posterous isn't rocket science, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't consider a signing bonus at Facebook impressive.
- strlen 16y ago
  Posterous is out in the open for everybody to see. Why hasn't Facebook "killed it", then? Understanding user behaviour and preferences is part of what makes something defensible. Not having to build a product to operate at Facebook's scale (and expectation of reliability) at day one is a way to help discover people's preferences, especially for a "new idea".
  - tptacek 16y ago
    There is no startup success that this argument can't attribute to the intangible "understanding behavior and preferences", and no signing-bonus exit that the same argument can't dismiss the same way. My point is simply that there are a lot of very straightforward ideas that merit far more than a signing-bonus exit.
  - 10ren 16y ago
    Can you elaborate on "understanding behavior and preferences" with some example behavior and preferences, please? There are many bases of competitive advantage, but I don't have a clear picture of this one. The main customer-side advantage I see is that your product becomes identified with the idea/technology in the customer mind (perhaps of a tiny niche) - not that it's better than something else, just that it exists. But there's still a problem of getting to this state.
    - strlen 16y ago
      Greenspun has an even better explanation of this than I do: The most reliable source of supranormal profits is superior knowledge of one kind of customer (Way #3). Ideally this will be the kind of customer that larger companies are overlooking. The founders of SAP, for example, were employees of IBM Germany for many years and got exposed to the accounting challenges of large manufacturers. When they quit IBM, they were among the best situated programmers in the world to build an accounting system for manufacturing companies. It is not because these guys were the world's best programmers that SAP is today bringing in $10 billion per year in revenue and has a market capitalization of $60 billion. It is because these guys were the best programmers who understood the problems of their customers. http://philip.greenspun.com/business/startup-tips/ http://philip.greenspun.com/business/startup-tips/
      - 10ren 16y ago
        Thanks! Domain knowledge - but applying this to a mass market feel a bit mind-bending to me. Of course, it's still problems and knowledge, and so not qualitatively different from those in a specific niche. I guess the misleading thing is that by the time a mass market is mass, they are well-known (or appear to be). As an example, Youtube was once small. And while the consumers were perhaps (?) easy to understand, the producers (who created the value), were a much smaller group, a more specific kind of person, using specific new tech (mobile phones) with specific problems. And it only later grew into a mass market (though I guess arguably the producers are still "one kind of customer".)
coryl 16y ago
Not completely true, sometimes being first matters.
- gnaritas 16y ago
  Most times, it doesn't.
abraham 16y ago
Facebook has the money and scale to implement anything they choose to. Trivially or not.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Yes, just like google, right. Google video completely obliterated those youtube upstarts. Oh, wait. That a company has the money and the scale to implement anything they choose to, trivially or not does not mean they will actually succeed in the marketplace. Small companies doing one thing have something big companies do not: relentless focus.
  - codexon 16y ago
    Google could have waited until the bandwidth costs and the lawsuits from Viacom ate them alive. Remember, Youtube hasn't even become profitable yet. Google already had a capable clone. They just lacked the community because they were a late arrival. If Google's Sergey, Larry, or Schmidt were as ruthless as Zuckerberg, I have no doubt that Youtube would have been left to die.
    - zavulon 16y ago
      Google didn't buy Youtube out of goodness of their hearts. If it wasn't them, I'm sure there was plenty of other companies that were looking to purchase, and I'm sure at least some of them have the necessary resources to deal with bandwidth/legal issues
      - codexon 16y ago
        I never said Google bought Youtube out of kindness. I said that Google had the option of letting Youtube weaken, and buy them at a discount...or fully letting them die out and have Google Video dominate. Each decision with a different risk/reward ratio. They chose the lowest risk/reward since $1.6 billion is probably a relative drop in the bucket for them.
    - mixmax 16y ago
randomwalker 16y ago
Given the timing I think it is pretty clear that he is talking specifically about YCRFS7. If you're building something on top of a platform there is always the danger that the platform provider will decide to incorporate your product as a feature. There is certainly a lot of precedent for this — in recent years Apple, Twitter, and Facebook have all done it.
javajones 16y ago
Ideas can always be stolen. We've had so called investors try to rip us off left and right. Don't think Facebook isn't capable of the same.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >Ideas can always be stolen. Ideas can never be stolen. If I have an idea and tell you about it, then you use it, I've still access to that idea and can still use it too. Yes I worked in IP for a time. Yes I'm a pedant. But there is a very important distinction both morally and legally between theft and copying (eg tortuous IP infringement).
  - javajones 16y ago
    Tell that to someone who's had an idea copyrighted/patented and used without their permission.
    - Natsu 16y ago
      You mean like when those guys making the JMRI model train software that had some jerk company take their code without respecting the OSS license, then patented something they'd been doing for years and counter-sued them for infringing that patent when they tried to get them to respect the license? Yeah, I'd call that stolen (or at least 'attempted theft'), because they were about to lose their rights. Thankfully, the JMRI guys won in court, so they got their rights back.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
MichaelApproved 16y ago
If you want a job at Facebook then apply directly. Building an entire business just to get hired at a company seems excessive and contrary to the reason most people start their own business.
- strlen 16y ago
  That was (sort of) my point. If you build something fairly trivial and not defensible on its own, "talent acquisition" is a rather good outcome.

jasonmcalacanis 16y ago

here is the full clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWJAkjF9qnY#t=1h14m44s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWJAkjF9qnY#t=1h14m44s

pingswept 16y ago

Minor correction. s/you get found by Facebook/you get involved with Facebook/