4 ms·

I don't even understand the debate: Your lifespan, healthspan, lifetime happiness and ability to run a company will only go up once you cash out for 4-10 milli

by gte910h 16y ago

I don't even understand the debate: Your lifespan, healthspan, lifetime happiness and ability to run a company will only go up once you cash out for 4-10 million or more. You've literally solved the money problem at that point. Why would you risk that on a vanity billion dollar exit?

Aetius 16y ago
Glory!
budu3 16y ago
Well, a billion dollar company might enable you to make a 'bigger' difference. You help make your employees wealthy (Google's millionaire emplyees), you help shape whatever sector you're in (hopefully for the better). You create value for you shareholders. Everyone's a winner, theoretically.
- bapadna 16y ago
  Your argument is only true for people who have only one business idea. If you have a wealth of ideas, you can execute one and sell at a point that gets security for your self and your family, then execute another and aim bigger, but with your downside risk eliminated.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Is that common, though? When I think of companies that shaped the tech industry in a huge way, very few are companies founded by people who had already had a big exit and were on to their second or third company after already becoming millionaires. Impact on the scale of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Sun, nVidia, Oracle, etc., seems to involve founders who stay with their companies and guide them over a period of decades. Jobs did try the second-company route via NeXT, which had some impact, but he eventually had to return to Apple to get the kind of impact he wanted, which he wasn't able to do via NeXT (though he brought a good part of it back with him).
    - bapadna 16y ago
      Jobs also had Pixar, which had an undeniable impact in it's field. Here's a question to test if you really believe the argument you seem to be making: You have the idea of your lifetime. It's a billion dollar idea. You are looking for a co-founder, and find two amazing prospects. They are equal in every way (education, drive, interests, etc) except one: Jim spent the past five years working at a startup that he just sold for $20m. Tim spent the past five years working in an office job. You can only pick one of them. Do you prefer Tim or Jim?
      - nostrademons 16y ago
        I don't think that's really testing the argument he's making. He's arguing that people are more likely to start giant companies on their first go round, not that they're more likely to prefer cofounders who're on their first go round. When you're looking for a cofounder, you're naturally biased toward someone with relevant experience, because the whole point of recruiting them is so that they can add value to the business and increase its chance of success. But when you're the initiator, a large portion of your contribution is picking the initial direction of the company, and what it's trying to accomplish. It's quite possible for first-time entrepreneurs to pick more ambitious goals and yet have less of a chance of success than repeat entrepreneurs.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      Elon Musk. PayPal, SpaceX, Tesla.
    - srwh 16y ago
      You can't compare (or compare in an unfavorable way) the fundamentals of these companies with the fundamentals of hyped web companies, also many of those companies were profitable quickly and follow the IPO way. FourSquare will be here in ten years? Twitter? Zynga? M&A can make them durable but IMHO their fundamentals are more volatile: Google is not just a company who configured open source software and develop some scripts, some of their processes (adwords) can't be even copied with virtually infinite money (microsoft=>adcenter, yahoo=>overture, Apple=>iAds). We can argue that you can't copy/trash the network effect of facebook but we are in the prehistoric moments of the hypercompetitive web and their fundamentals are more volatile.
patio11 16y ago
Some people would rather be famous, be the toast of the town, be adored by who they perceive as their peer group, leave who they perceive as their peer group, be on the front cover of Newsweek, get a movie written about them, etc... than have life, or health, money, or a successful business. It is basically the Achilles question, right? Durable since the classics: would you like to live long or die gloriously? (Like most dichotomies, there are almost certainly options in the solution set not mentioned.)
Psyonic 16y ago
If you're doing what you love, why give that up for money and the chance to find another thing you love? Lightning doesn't always strike twice. Also, to rip off Sean Parker's character in "The Social Network", do you want to end up like Roy Raymond, who committed suicide after selling Victoria's Secret on the cheap, watching with regret as it grew into the billions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Raymond_(businessman) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Raymond_(businessman)
- mkramlich 16y ago
  That scene with Parker was one of my favorite in the movie. I liked how after telling Roy's story to Mark and then talking about how Facebook was a once in a lifetime opportunity, and seemingly after he was done talking about Roy, he tossed out the line, "The water under the Golden Gate bridge is cold." Awesome line. Then not a minute later he told Mark that he wanted him to be able to say, "I'm CEO, bitch." Regardless of whatever imperfections the man may have had, he clearly knew how to motivate people. As portrayed in the movie, he seemed to have a powerful effect on Mark and the rest of the Facebook crew.
  - Psyonic 16y ago
    Absolutely. I found that speech very inspirational. I'm aware that founding a startup isn't really like that (not usually, at least), but it still threw some coals on the fire.
    - mkramlich 16y ago
      Agreed. Though to your comment about what startups are like in real life, I'd say that based on my experience, in the real world, startups can be exactly how it was portrayed in the movie. Yes the movie was optimized to be more dramatic and "perfect". But in broader strokes, and in terms of the kinds of incidents and patterns and relationships that happen, I've found startups to be a lot like how early Facebook was portrayed. Been there, done that, even have the t-shirt. Just don't have the billion dollar valuation... yet. ;)
kellishaver 16y ago
Maybe some would say I lack ambition, but I wouldn't even need millions. If my start-up was acquired for enough to pay off the mortgage and toss a bit of funding into the next venture, I'd be happy, but I'm looking at it from someone in the perspective of being in a very low cost of income area, who's building up a business from $0 in outside funding. Do I think our product has potential for more? Yeah, sure (though it's still in development at the moment), but I'd rather have the security of having "enough" than the risk of waiting for a top-dollar offer and ending up with nothing if it never happened. Which maybe means the start-up scene isn't the best fit for me in the first place, but I love what I do.

by gte910h 16y ago

Aetius 16y ago

Glory!

budu3 16y ago

Well, a billion dollar company might enable you to make a 'bigger' difference. You help make your employees wealthy (Google's millionaire emplyees), you help shape whatever sector you're in (hopefully for the better). You create value for you shareholders. Everyone's a winner, theoretically.

bapadna 16y ago
Your argument is only true for people who have only one business idea. If you have a wealth of ideas, you can execute one and sell at a point that gets security for your self and your family, then execute another and aim bigger, but with your downside risk eliminated.
- _delirium 16y ago
  Is that common, though? When I think of companies that shaped the tech industry in a huge way, very few are companies founded by people who had already had a big exit and were on to their second or third company after already becoming millionaires. Impact on the scale of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Sun, nVidia, Oracle, etc., seems to involve founders who stay with their companies and guide them over a period of decades. Jobs did try the second-company route via NeXT, which had some impact, but he eventually had to return to Apple to get the kind of impact he wanted, which he wasn't able to do via NeXT (though he brought a good part of it back with him).
  - bapadna 16y ago
    Jobs also had Pixar, which had an undeniable impact in it's field. Here's a question to test if you really believe the argument you seem to be making: You have the idea of your lifetime. It's a billion dollar idea. You are looking for a co-founder, and find two amazing prospects. They are equal in every way (education, drive, interests, etc) except one: Jim spent the past five years working at a startup that he just sold for $20m. Tim spent the past five years working in an office job. You can only pick one of them. Do you prefer Tim or Jim?
    - nostrademons 16y ago
      I don't think that's really testing the argument he's making. He's arguing that people are more likely to start giant companies on their first go round, not that they're more likely to prefer cofounders who're on their first go round. When you're looking for a cofounder, you're naturally biased toward someone with relevant experience, because the whole point of recruiting them is so that they can add value to the business and increase its chance of success. But when you're the initiator, a large portion of your contribution is picking the initial direction of the company, and what it's trying to accomplish. It's quite possible for first-time entrepreneurs to pick more ambitious goals and yet have less of a chance of success than repeat entrepreneurs.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Elon Musk. PayPal, SpaceX, Tesla.
  - srwh 16y ago
    You can't compare (or compare in an unfavorable way) the fundamentals of these companies with the fundamentals of hyped web companies, also many of those companies were profitable quickly and follow the IPO way. FourSquare will be here in ten years? Twitter? Zynga? M&A can make them durable but IMHO their fundamentals are more volatile: Google is not just a company who configured open source software and develop some scripts, some of their processes (adwords) can't be even copied with virtually infinite money (microsoft=>adcenter, yahoo=>overture, Apple=>iAds). We can argue that you can't copy/trash the network effect of facebook but we are in the prehistoric moments of the hypercompetitive web and their fundamentals are more volatile.

patio11 16y ago

Some people would rather be famous, be the toast of the town, be adored by who they perceive as their peer group, leave who they perceive as their peer group, be on the front cover of Newsweek, get a movie written about them, etc... than have life, or health, money, or a successful business. It is basically the Achilles question, right? Durable since the classics: would you like to live long or die gloriously? (Like most dichotomies, there are almost certainly options in the solution set not mentioned.)

Psyonic 16y ago

If you're doing what you love, why give that up for money and the chance to find another thing you love? Lightning doesn't always strike twice. Also, to rip off Sean Parker's character in "The Social Network", do you want to end up like Roy Raymond, who committed suicide after selling Victoria's Secret on the cheap, watching with regret as it grew into the billions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Raymond_(businessman) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Raymond_(businessman)

mkramlich 16y ago
That scene with Parker was one of my favorite in the movie. I liked how after telling Roy's story to Mark and then talking about how Facebook was a once in a lifetime opportunity, and seemingly after he was done talking about Roy, he tossed out the line, "The water under the Golden Gate bridge is cold." Awesome line. Then not a minute later he told Mark that he wanted him to be able to say, "I'm CEO, bitch." Regardless of whatever imperfections the man may have had, he clearly knew how to motivate people. As portrayed in the movie, he seemed to have a powerful effect on Mark and the rest of the Facebook crew.
- Psyonic 16y ago
  Absolutely. I found that speech very inspirational. I'm aware that founding a startup isn't really like that (not usually, at least), but it still threw some coals on the fire.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    Agreed. Though to your comment about what startups are like in real life, I'd say that based on my experience, in the real world, startups can be exactly how it was portrayed in the movie. Yes the movie was optimized to be more dramatic and "perfect". But in broader strokes, and in terms of the kinds of incidents and patterns and relationships that happen, I've found startups to be a lot like how early Facebook was portrayed. Been there, done that, even have the t-shirt. Just don't have the billion dollar valuation... yet. ;)

kellishaver 16y ago

Maybe some would say I lack ambition, but I wouldn't even need millions. If my start-up was acquired for enough to pay off the mortgage and toss a bit of funding into the next venture, I'd be happy, but I'm looking at it from someone in the perspective of being in a very low cost of income area, who's building up a business from $0 in outside funding. Do I think our product has potential for more? Yeah, sure (though it's still in development at the moment), but I'd rather have the security of having "enough" than the risk of waiting for a top-dollar offer and ending up with nothing if it never happened. Which maybe means the start-up scene isn't the best fit for me in the first place, but I love what I do.