4 ms·

I can second that—it's an excellent book. It put a clear image in my mind of the sort of environment I'd like to develop software in: primarily just a group of

I can second that—it's an excellent book. It put a clear image in my mind of the sort of environment I'd like to develop software in: primarily just a group of friends who have a shared idea of something cool they want to build together. I've been disillusioned that that will happen at a Silicon Valley type startup (not that it's impossible—but far more likely that the founders will segregate themselves from employees in such a way that everyone involved can't feel the same passion, commitment, interest, etc.—or even just the knowledge that they're going through the same struggle at the same time. Also the big stakes and investor pressure etc. are almost certainly gonna drain the fun.), but I'm still hopeful I can find or create similar circumstances elsewhere.

phil21 8y ago
It's been interesting and sad to watch the definition of "startup" transform from the bootstrapped style "group of friends" company like Id Software who... well, defined the damn term - into the VC-funded "startups" of today. If anything startups today look like insanely corporate structures to me, answering to "the man" before they even get off the ground much less accomplish anything of note. Certainly strange to watch the definition shift over time.
nsp 8y ago
I have trouble believing the nyc startup scene is more egalitarian, but I’m on my 4th startup as an early employee (#1-18ish) and the founders have always been in the trenches. Not to invalidate your experience, just to emphasize the role of luck in all of this.
- westoncb 8y ago
  I've been at two startups, one in Boston and one in San Francisco. At the Boston startup, all the founders but one were very much 'in the trenches'; the one who wasn't was a professor splitting her time elsewhere, so it made sense. That company was ~20 people when I joined. At the SF startup, the founder was... (to avoid saying too much) alienating, though the whole company was only four people for much of the time, and never more than eight or so. In any case, the main thing I want to say is that it doesn't really matter whether they are 'in the trenches.' You are in different realms of existence if you own the company vs. work for it. As a founder, it's your personal creation; as an employee, you may care about the product, but the primary thing is your paycheck (most startup employees I've spoken with are much more mercenary with this than myself, too). You know that if it succeeds, the founder will become rich and famous and enter a social stratum that the employees will still only be able to fantasize about. No one will know their name or grant them ridiculous amounts of respect etc. Even if none of that comes to fruition, the fact that your potential courses (as they relate to the company) are so divided creates immediate present-term social distance. And you lose the sense of shared struggle—or it's at least on a much lower level. If you're all equal owners, the feeling of going to work on your shared thing must be very different, I imagine. I think it's probably also necessary to not take investment (or somehow do it in a very low pressure way), in order to have fun like the Id guys.

phil21 8y ago

It's been interesting and sad to watch the definition of "startup" transform from the bootstrapped style "group of friends" company like Id Software who... well, defined the damn term - into the VC-funded "startups" of today. If anything startups today look like insanely corporate structures to me, answering to "the man" before they even get off the ground much less accomplish anything of note. Certainly strange to watch the definition shift over time.

nsp 8y ago

I have trouble believing the nyc startup scene is more egalitarian, but I’m on my 4th startup as an early employee (#1-18ish) and the founders have always been in the trenches. Not to invalidate your experience, just to emphasize the role of luck in all of this.

westoncb 8y ago
I've been at two startups, one in Boston and one in San Francisco. At the Boston startup, all the founders but one were very much 'in the trenches'; the one who wasn't was a professor splitting her time elsewhere, so it made sense. That company was ~20 people when I joined. At the SF startup, the founder was... (to avoid saying too much) alienating, though the whole company was only four people for much of the time, and never more than eight or so. In any case, the main thing I want to say is that it doesn't really matter whether they are 'in the trenches.' You are in different realms of existence if you own the company vs. work for it. As a founder, it's your personal creation; as an employee, you may care about the product, but the primary thing is your paycheck (most startup employees I've spoken with are much more mercenary with this than myself, too). You know that if it succeeds, the founder will become rich and famous and enter a social stratum that the employees will still only be able to fantasize about. No one will know their name or grant them ridiculous amounts of respect etc. Even if none of that comes to fruition, the fact that your potential courses (as they relate to the company) are so divided creates immediate present-term social distance. And you lose the sense of shared struggle—or it's at least on a much lower level. If you're all equal owners, the feeling of going to work on your shared thing must be very different, I imagine. I think it's probably also necessary to not take investment (or somehow do it in a very low pressure way), in order to have fun like the Id guys.