8 ms·

I'm disappointed that this has gotten so many upvotes and positive comments. There's a middle ground between web application "lifestyle businesses" (like dupin

by al3x 16y ago

I'm disappointed that this has gotten so many upvotes and positive comments. There's a middle ground between web application "lifestyle businesses" (like duping credulous customers into overpaying for a time-tracking tool styled with this month's CSS trends) and trying to start the next Facebook. There's nothing wrong with being a small software company. People have been doing it for decades now. It's boring, but there's nothing wrong with it. Don't expect anyone to celebrate you for doing it, though. Our time on this earth is limited, and people's attention is even more limited. No wonder that more time and attention is put towards trying to execute on big ideas. Sometimes those ideas end up not working out, but we're all better, I think, for someone having tried. As pg points out, the ideas that led to the businesses that have formed the infrastructure that enables web lifestyle businesses could not have, themselves, been lifestyle businesses. Someone has to think big, take risks, and deploy significant capital in the interest of a dramatically better world. If you don't want to be that person, great, but don't tell the risk-takers that they're "wasting their lives". Would you say the same to scientists who take big risks? Artists? The media packaging of technology entrepreneurship is undeniably offputting. But that's no excuse for dim commentary like this.

nhangen 16y ago
Your comment is not only Offensive, but it is also ignorant. Boring? "lifestyle business?" have you built the next Facebook (which also happens to not be a "change the world" service anyway)? Disagree with the post...fine, but no need to drag everyone through the mud in the process.
- jpcx01 16y ago
  Haha. Not sure if you realized this, but you are talking to the person who built the next Facebook, aka Twitter.
  - dpritchett 16y ago
    Google shows me that Twitter was founded nine months before Alex came on board. I've read plenty of his posts and presentations and I respect his technical abilities, but your "built Twitter" comment oversimplifies his involvement in the company's history. His presentations do imply that he was the driving force behind the Scala adoption for their messaging queue, so that's arguably a must-have to reach Twitter's current scale.
jv22222 16y ago
Nothing excludes people who start lifestyle businesses from starting a huge multi-billion dollar infrastructure play after they have created their first business. However they will be much better at "business" by the time they do it.
- igrekel 16y ago
  Yes, they may be better at running a business, but they'll be stuck in running a business. Small businesses aren't easy to sell, there are tons of family-type small businesses (and I am not talking about corner shops) lacking anyone to take over.
  - jv22222 16y ago
    Nope. They won't be stuck. A huge part of building this type of business is automating it. Derek Sivers completely automated CD Baby to a point where he wasn't even needed anymore. Then he sold it for $22m. Actually that's the perfect example of what I'm talking about. Not sure why I didn't think to to mention it before.
    - igrekel 16y ago
      That's too easy to say. While making it all automated is the goal, it doesn't mean it will be attained. I believe CD Baby is more an exception than the rule. Its hard to hire people who care, let alone people who will make sure the business runs even without you.
- nikcub 16y ago
  > Nothing excludes people who start lifestyle businesses from starting a huge multi-billion dollar infrastructure play after they have created their first business. so they would invest their own money to create a bigger company, the difference being that the source of funding is now the founder then the founder thinks, jeez, I am taking a big risk here, investing $100M of my own money to start this bigger business. I am going to call some friends and ask them if they want to share this load and thus you end up re-inventing venture capital issue of semantics isn't it - why does it matter that it has to be the founders own money?
credo 16y ago
Microsoft was a bootstrapped company and at the time, I suspect that some people derided it as a "lifestyle business". They didn't go chasing after VC money and didn't use the zero-revenue customer acquisition model to grow. Are you sure that Microsoft didn't impact the world. I'm not sure which "lifestyle business" duped customers into overpaying, but it is absurd to equate the so-called lifestyle business to "duping credulous customers into overpaying for a time-tracking tool styled with this month's CSS trends". I can list far worse cases - corporate fraud and crimes - with large companies Ultimately, the "lifestyle business" is a silly vc-invented label. Running after VC money is also a lifestyle. All businesses aim to impact lifestyles of founders, employees and customers. The difference is that vc-funded business also impact lifestyles of vcs. Bootstrapped companies don't impact vc lifestyles (unless they compete with a VC-funded company :). imo both lifestyles are equally valid, but it is absurd to describe one as a lifestyle company and pretend that the other one (which risks other people's money) is the true and only "risk-taker"
- pg 16y ago
  The VC industry barely existed when Microsoft was founded in 1975. I don't know if Bill Gates would even have known the word "startup" then. He was starting a business the only way people knew how to at the time. Now founders have more options. That's not bad. In fact, the empirical evidence suggests it's net better, because the company that would be most people's candidate for the "next Microsoft," Google, took advantage of these new options to grow faster than Microsoft did.
  - credo 16y ago
    More options are great. I have always said that the bootstrapped model and the vc-funded model are both good legitimate models for businesses. My problem with the parent post was the absurd notion it promoted about companies that didn't run chase vc funding. As mentioned, I also think that "lifestyle business" is a stupid vc-invented label. Incidentally, Google developed great technology and a great monetization strategy before they took in vc funding. Being acquired wasn't Google's goal. The reality of today's VC world is the opposite of Google's approach. VCs make money through the acquisitions of companies they fund.
devin 16y ago
Small web businesses are only boring if they aren't challenging norms in what constitutes a small lifestyle web business. There is always room for innovation and ideas even if it's not the next Facebook. It's like you say: Someone has to try; We're all better off for it. ETA: I tend to agree with you, just sayin'.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
olivercameron 16y ago
I find nothing wrong with an entrepreneur not wanting to shoot for the stars. Some people are simply not interested in changing the world, and maybe would prefer to spend more time with their family, should that really be discouraged? Calling it "disgusting" seems a step too far: https://twitter.com/al3x/status/48558660552630272 https://twitter.com/al3x/status/48558660552630272 Personally, I'm in it to change things, but I'm not going to discourage someone who is in it to provide a good living for their family. Going all out when you're supporting others just isn't an option in some cases, in fact it could be downright dangerous.
- flyosity 16y ago
  Yup, totally agree with you. I'd say it takes more talent to build something and sell it to real people than to give PowerPoint presentations to rich people and build things that may never make any money. But that's just my take.
Chris_Newton 16y ago
You seem to be contrasting running a small business with running a large business. My impression was that the article was contrasting running a small business with working for The Man. If so, the original author's argument has merit. For one thing, software development is almost entirely a knowledge-based industry. It does not require external funding to reach any useful viability in the way that, for example, a factory for industrial machinery or a large retail store would. Moreover, in software development, the mechanical grunt work is trivial. The real value is determined by things like project ideas, business models, dealing effectively with users, and ability to convert those into a useful software design. That means small teams of really good people can punch way above their weight class. As I see it, those basically negate the two big reasons most projects would necessarily be implemented by a large company (scale of people and scale of materials). That pretty much leaves variations on the themes of community/personal development and regularity/job security as the major reasons a good software developer might choose to work as an employee of a company rather than going it alone or with a small team they put together. After a few years, I came to the conclusion that both of those benefits are mostly illusory. Does employee #32,768 at BigCorp, Inc. really have more job security in the current economic climate than a contractor with four or five repeat clients, or than three guys running a lifestyle business that has 1,000 customers and enough money coming in each month to easily pay everyone's bills? And do employees at big companies really develop skills and experience faster than a bunch of guys who build an entire working business from scratch or a contractor who works with four or five different technology stacks within a few months? I'm not saying employment isn't for anyone. Obviously the kind of regular work environment it brings suits a lot of people, and not everyone wants to take on all the other stuff that goes with doing it all yourself. However, those are basically social constraints rather than technical ones. They don't reflect on the potential value a particular software developer could contribute to a project. I notice that several people in this discussion have pointed at the need for some things to be done at scale. Pg himself wrote: > If that happened, the whole world would crumble, because we wouldn't have any technology bigger than could be built by lifestyle businesses. But the way I see it, every successful large project is either a successful small project that grew or a bunch of successful small projects that learned to interact effectively. No-one says that just because you decide to run a small business instead of working for the The Man today, you can't grow that business or collaborate with others tomorrow.
taphangum 16y ago
+ 1bn
martinkallstrom 16y ago
To anyone reading this after the discussion took place, there is a follow-up by al3x here where he clarifies his position: http://al3x.net/2011/03/18/not-a-waste.html http://al3x.net/2011/03/18/not-a-waste.html
jeckel 16y ago
If you go to your companies website, Bank Simple, it has an article entitle: "BankSimple Wants to Shake Up Banking with Cutting Edge UI Design". It seems Freckle isn't the only one who wants to use "this month's CSS trends".

by al3x 16y ago

nhangen 16y ago

Your comment is not only Offensive, but it is also ignorant. Boring? "lifestyle business?" have you built the next Facebook (which also happens to not be a "change the world" service anyway)? Disagree with the post...fine, but no need to drag everyone through the mud in the process.

jpcx01 16y ago
Haha. Not sure if you realized this, but you are talking to the person who built the next Facebook, aka Twitter.
- dpritchett 16y ago
  Google shows me that Twitter was founded nine months before Alex came on board. I've read plenty of his posts and presentations and I respect his technical abilities, but your "built Twitter" comment oversimplifies his involvement in the company's history. His presentations do imply that he was the driving force behind the Scala adoption for their messaging queue, so that's arguably a must-have to reach Twitter's current scale.

jv22222 16y ago

Nothing excludes people who start lifestyle businesses from starting a huge multi-billion dollar infrastructure play after they have created their first business. However they will be much better at "business" by the time they do it.

igrekel 16y ago
Yes, they may be better at running a business, but they'll be stuck in running a business. Small businesses aren't easy to sell, there are tons of family-type small businesses (and I am not talking about corner shops) lacking anyone to take over.
- jv22222 16y ago
  Nope. They won't be stuck. A huge part of building this type of business is automating it. Derek Sivers completely automated CD Baby to a point where he wasn't even needed anymore. Then he sold it for $22m. Actually that's the perfect example of what I'm talking about. Not sure why I didn't think to to mention it before.
  - igrekel 16y ago
    That's too easy to say. While making it all automated is the goal, it doesn't mean it will be attained. I believe CD Baby is more an exception than the rule. Its hard to hire people who care, let alone people who will make sure the business runs even without you.
nikcub 16y ago
> Nothing excludes people who start lifestyle businesses from starting a huge multi-billion dollar infrastructure play after they have created their first business. so they would invest their own money to create a bigger company, the difference being that the source of funding is now the founder then the founder thinks, jeez, I am taking a big risk here, investing $100M of my own money to start this bigger business. I am going to call some friends and ask them if they want to share this load and thus you end up re-inventing venture capital issue of semantics isn't it - why does it matter that it has to be the founders own money?

credo 16y ago

Microsoft was a bootstrapped company and at the time, I suspect that some people derided it as a "lifestyle business". They didn't go chasing after VC money and didn't use the zero-revenue customer acquisition model to grow. Are you sure that Microsoft didn't impact the world. I'm not sure which "lifestyle business" duped customers into overpaying, but it is absurd to equate the so-called lifestyle business to "duping credulous customers into overpaying for a time-tracking tool styled with this month's CSS trends". I can list far worse cases - corporate fraud and crimes - with large companies Ultimately, the "lifestyle business" is a silly vc-invented label. Running after VC money is also a lifestyle. All businesses aim to impact lifestyles of founders, employees and customers. The difference is that vc-funded business also impact lifestyles of vcs. Bootstrapped companies don't impact vc lifestyles (unless they compete with a VC-funded company :). imo both lifestyles are equally valid, but it is absurd to describe one as a lifestyle company and pretend that the other one (which risks other people's money) is the true and only "risk-taker"

pg 16y ago
The VC industry barely existed when Microsoft was founded in 1975. I don't know if Bill Gates would even have known the word "startup" then. He was starting a business the only way people knew how to at the time. Now founders have more options. That's not bad. In fact, the empirical evidence suggests it's net better, because the company that would be most people's candidate for the "next Microsoft," Google, took advantage of these new options to grow faster than Microsoft did.
- credo 16y ago
  More options are great. I have always said that the bootstrapped model and the vc-funded model are both good legitimate models for businesses. My problem with the parent post was the absurd notion it promoted about companies that didn't run chase vc funding. As mentioned, I also think that "lifestyle business" is a stupid vc-invented label. Incidentally, Google developed great technology and a great monetization strategy before they took in vc funding. Being acquired wasn't Google's goal. The reality of today's VC world is the opposite of Google's approach. VCs make money through the acquisitions of companies they fund.

devin 16y ago

Small web businesses are only boring if they aren't challenging norms in what constitutes a small lifestyle web business. There is always room for innovation and ideas even if it's not the next Facebook. It's like you say: Someone has to try; We're all better off for it. ETA: I tend to agree with you, just sayin'.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

olivercameron 16y ago

I find nothing wrong with an entrepreneur not wanting to shoot for the stars. Some people are simply not interested in changing the world, and maybe would prefer to spend more time with their family, should that really be discouraged? Calling it "disgusting" seems a step too far: https://twitter.com/al3x/status/48558660552630272 https://twitter.com/al3x/status/48558660552630272 Personally, I'm in it to change things, but I'm not going to discourage someone who is in it to provide a good living for their family. Going all out when you're supporting others just isn't an option in some cases, in fact it could be downright dangerous.

flyosity 16y ago
Yup, totally agree with you. I'd say it takes more talent to build something and sell it to real people than to give PowerPoint presentations to rich people and build things that may never make any money. But that's just my take.

Chris_Newton 16y ago

You seem to be contrasting running a small business with running a large business. My impression was that the article was contrasting running a small business with working for The Man. If so, the original author's argument has merit. For one thing, software development is almost entirely a knowledge-based industry. It does not require external funding to reach any useful viability in the way that, for example, a factory for industrial machinery or a large retail store would. Moreover, in software development, the mechanical grunt work is trivial. The real value is determined by things like project ideas, business models, dealing effectively with users, and ability to convert those into a useful software design. That means small teams of really good people can punch way above their weight class. As I see it, those basically negate the two big reasons most projects would necessarily be implemented by a large company (scale of people and scale of materials). That pretty much leaves variations on the themes of community/personal development and regularity/job security as the major reasons a good software developer might choose to work as an employee of a company rather than going it alone or with a small team they put together. After a few years, I came to the conclusion that both of those benefits are mostly illusory. Does employee #32,768 at BigCorp, Inc. really have more job security in the current economic climate than a contractor with four or five repeat clients, or than three guys running a lifestyle business that has 1,000 customers and enough money coming in each month to easily pay everyone's bills? And do employees at big companies really develop skills and experience faster than a bunch of guys who build an entire working business from scratch or a contractor who works with four or five different technology stacks within a few months? I'm not saying employment isn't for anyone. Obviously the kind of regular work environment it brings suits a lot of people, and not everyone wants to take on all the other stuff that goes with doing it all yourself. However, those are basically social constraints rather than technical ones. They don't reflect on the potential value a particular software developer could contribute to a project. I notice that several people in this discussion have pointed at the need for some things to be done at scale. Pg himself wrote: > If that happened, the whole world would crumble, because we wouldn't have any technology bigger than could be built by lifestyle businesses. But the way I see it, every successful large project is either a successful small project that grew or a bunch of successful small projects that learned to interact effectively. No-one says that just because you decide to run a small business instead of working for the The Man today, you can't grow that business or collaborate with others tomorrow.

taphangum 16y ago

+ 1bn

martinkallstrom 16y ago

To anyone reading this after the discussion took place, there is a follow-up by al3x here where he clarifies his position: http://al3x.net/2011/03/18/not-a-waste.html http://al3x.net/2011/03/18/not-a-waste.html

jeckel 16y ago

If you go to your companies website, Bank Simple, it has an article entitle: "BankSimple Wants to Shake Up Banking with Cutting Edge UI Design". It seems Freckle isn't the only one who wants to use "this month's CSS trends".