3 ms·
I would agree with you on the surface, however the problem in my book arises when he was contracted to perform services and intentionally delayed production. It
by pxlpshr 18y ago
I would agree with you on the surface, however the problem in my book arises when he was contracted to perform services and intentionally delayed production. It's sabotage, not savvy. Very poor taste and does not constitute a smart business man nor worthly competitor; a weasel's move. Had he heard the idea and walked away lacking confidence in their ability to execute, well... that's a completely different story.
Regardless, I still think he's a genuine entrepreneur and the success of Facebook is a reflection of his ambition. I only wish I had not heard this side of the story, it contradicts a more positive image I associated to him. It also sounds like success has gone to his head, a discount to fortune that makes it lonelier at the top.
:\
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- jacobolus 18y agoThe assertion that he intentionally sabotaged them seems just a touch far-fetched. They made an (it sounds like) informal contract with a procrastinating college sophomore, in the middle of a busy school term. Occam’s razor would suggest the delays were caused by disinterest, procrastination, and the busy-ness of his schedule, not malice or greed. These guys were supposedly working on their site (of a relatively simple and obvious idea) for a year, with nothing to show for it, and their conclusion is: “'That's supposed to be us.' We're not there, because one greedy kid cut us out."” As if the 10 hours of work Zuckerberg didn’t do on their site was the only thing separating failure from unbelievable riches.
- Spyckie 18y agoYeah, its inconsistencies like these in the article that make you question just how much of the article is a good depiction of Z and how much of it is just pure spite.