6 ms·

"But it’s worth a read to understand the perspective of a vocal minority in the tech industry." That statement is a bit off-putting. First of all, this 'minori

• nonrecursive 16y ago
  I don't know, I think the article was off-putting to Alex for the reason that he states: it focuses on achieving personal happiness rather than improving the lives of as many people as possible.
  • nir 16y ago
    Come on. How many of these companies improve anyone's lives? I doubt the world is any better thanks to Twitter, or Facebook, or Foursquare, certainly not thanks to the various clones, mashups and "me three" companies you see in TechCrunch every day.
    • JoachimSchipper 16y ago
      There are a lot of people who spend a lot of time on Twitter and breathlessly tell everyone that it's great. Apparently it's not useless to them (although I've never used it, and you probably didn't either), and I don't think there are many big downsides to Twitter. (I'm not so sure that the "no harm done" applies to Facebook, in particular wrt privacy.)
      • nir 16y ago
        A lot of people are breathlessly excited about Lady Gaga. Does her existence improve the world? Maybe, for them. Would they be worse off if they never heard of her? Probably they'd find someone else to be breathless about. Note that the smaller Freckle/etc apps are the ones people actually pay for.
        • yummyfajitas 16y ago
          Are you seriously disputing the ability of music to make people's lives more enjoyable? By the way, Lady Gaga is something people actually pay for. If I recall right, her personal income was $60M last year. Presumably people paid a lot more than that for her music/entertainment.
          • jarek 16y ago
            I read that as disputing the exclusive ability of any specific performer to make people's lives enjoyable, while all others will not be able to do so. Before Gaga, people were paying for Madonna. After Gaga, people will be breathlessly excited and pay for someone else. If there was no Gaga, people would be breathlessly excited and pay for someone else yet.
            • nir 16y ago
              That's exactly what I meant. I love music. I just don't think "people are breathlessly excited about X" means "X is valuable". A lot of people are excited about reality TV.
    • nonrecursive 16y ago
      Whether or not any of the companies you mentioned (or other vc companies) have made the world better is irrelevant to the question of "Why did Alex react as he did to Justin and Amy's articles?" Alex provides enough information about his beliefs and about why he thinks those articles conflict with them that I, at least, trust he knows why he reacted the way he did. What is the point of questioning his level of self-awareness anyway? How does it further the conversation? Really, I don't understand the point of maxklein's comment. First, he takes issue with the phrase "vocal minority". OK, mISV people are either in the minority or the majority. Why does that matter either way? Then he ignores the major premise of the article (which I find interesting), and instead psychologizes Alex from behind his computer. What's the point? The main issue which Alex brings up is far more interesting. What should we value more, personal happiness or improving as many as lives as possible? What organizational structures are most suited to these different goals? Are these goals mutually exclusive, as Alex seems to assume they are?
      • nir 16y ago
        On the personal level I know almost nothing about these people (I heard a Mixergy interview with Hoy which was great). My reaction is to the notion that a big company necessarily improves the world more than a small one.
      • jdp23 16y ago
        > Alex provides enough information about his beliefs and about why he thinks those articles conflict with them that I, at least, trust he knows why he reacted the way he did. Really? I've never met him, but I know plenty of other people who despite providing a lot of information about their beliefs aren't completely candid with themselves about why they're reacting the way they do.
        • nonrecursive 16y ago
          That is a good point, but is it really worth it for a bunch of strangers to debate the issue based on a blog post? I don't understand what anyone has to gain by examining his personal psychological makeup.
    • achompas 16y ago
      People spend hours on Facebook interacting with their friends. I know people who have met significant others through Twitter. And what about Groupon? Google? There are countless examples.
      • nir 16y ago
        People had friends and met significant others before the internet. I'm not saying these apps are bad (they are both bad and good) but that in the bottom line the world isn't necessarily better or worse.
      • grails4life 16y ago
        I know people who met on AOL instant messenger. Big Deal
        • achompas 16y ago
          Terrible example by me, sure. But do you know of any Middle Eastern revolutions supported by AIM? Long form journalism ala @MayorEmanuel? Any academic studies examining mood on AIM and how it correlates to stock market performance?
        • mkramlich 16y ago
          Agreed. 1980: I know people that met at a local Young Republicans mixer. 1975: I know people that met at a disco and/or roller derby 50,000 BC: I know people that met in a cave.
    • chr15 16y ago
      The world is not better because of Twitter or Facebook? They played a role in the recent revolutions and help people connect with family and friends. Why do you think these governments tried to shut down the internet? They may not have been helpful to you but to others they are.
      • nir 16y ago
        This is really mostly MSM/blogosphere hype. These revolutions started when people set themselves afire, and risked their lives confronting the army/police. FB might have helped (Youtube probably even more, Twitter almost trivial) but in the same way that a cellphone would. Governments are now using social media to track dissidents as well, so it's not at all clear the net effect it positive.
        • chr15 16y ago
          Agree with your second point. But Twitter helped spread the YouTube videos so I doubt Twitter is trivial. Communication, whether it's the Internet or cell-phone, helped the revolutions by connecting people and organizing them. But yes, we don't know the net effect and I think it's impossible to know.
    • nickpinkston 16y ago
      Being someone who's trying to live by something close Alex's mantra with my startup (CloudFab, in the digital manufacturing space), I actually think all those companies (Fb, Tw, 4sq) provide very societally valuable things. How awesome is it that I can talk to old friends on Facebook (which does lead to in-person convo!), get great socially-vetted info on Twitter, or find local tips on Foursquare when traveling. Okay - maybe Zynga is where I draw the line... ;-) it really does seem like like they're hacking our brains like that fluke* that causes ants to get eaten by animals to spread itself. But still maybe that knowledge helps all of marketing by example... *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicrocoelium_dendriticum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicrocoelium_dendriticum
• erikpukinskis 16y ago
  Yeah, it's truly bizarre that Alex is at Amy Hoy's throat about this. Amy is utterly dedicated to encouraging more people who don't feel safe starting a business to GO DO IT. That seems like something Alex would be into. Maybe because he's shooting for the stars right now with BankSimple (which I am SO excited about) he's feeling a little nervous about that strategy. Being pre-launch on something so anticipated and ambitious must be at least a little scary!
  • jv22222 16y ago
    I guess I can understand Alex's perspective when I consider he's one the lucky few to be on the 0.0001% side of the equation and raised $2.9 million first round funding. (Must be nice.)
    • dpritchett 16y ago
      He might also be financially independent (at least on paper) thanks to Twitter stock. That could completely excise one's interest in lifestyle businesses.
    • nhangen 16y ago
      How is that an excuse for vitriol?
    • KirinDave 16y ago
      I think the idea that only %0.0001 of people who enter into startups walk out with their lives improved is absurd. It's a myth that we're all in this game for an FB payout, and it's a myth that that's the reason we want to play the game. Most of my startups have had payouts to me personally, via either stock buyback (to retain control of the company while securing more funding), or exit deals (in the case of powerset). And even for the cases where I didn't get a big payout, my experience and skills were improved dramatically by the environment and demands placed on me by the job. I went from working a dead-end job at Lockheed Martin and getting less than 3/4 the fair salary for someone with my skillset to courting jobs and turning people down. Anyone who knows me will tell you I am not a lucky person, and I am not a brilliant star amongst the constellation of smart people that fill the Valley. I simply play the game and move to jobs that balance my personal improvement with my chance for a payout.
• achompas 16y ago
  Payne is not deep in the bubble. He just has a very, very firm grasp of what makes him happy. Consider: "As above, I’m not talking about size or scale, or about maximizing profit." "What matters is how you can help the most people with what you do." "That said, there’s nothing wrong with starting small (we all have to, inherently), or even with staying small if that’s what best suits the mechanics of your business." His argument is more nuanced than "start up and grow big." He explicitly says as much in his article.
  • olivercameron 16y ago
    "Building a business around maximizing your individual happiness is not particularly useful or admirable." says different to me.
    • achompas 16y ago
      The entire article suggests he derives much more happiness from changing the world than running a lifestyle business. By creating a company that aims to revolutionize how banks deal with customers, Payne is having his cake and eating it, so to speak.
  • ahoyhere 16y ago
    Does he derive happiness from writing sanctimonious blog posts telling other people what to do?
    • icey 16y ago
      Maybe it's something they make you do if you want to be a banker.
    • deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    • achompas 16y ago
      You mean like posts about not following your passion? Or following the money? Or telling everyone to chill the fuck out? [0, 1, 2] Are you seriously complaining about sanctimonious blog posts? A quick peek at your blog suggests Pot and Kettle are having a conversation right now. [0] http://unicornfree.com/2011/dont-follow-your-passion/ http://unicornfree.com/2011/dont-follow-your-passion/ [1] http://unicornfree.com/2011/follow-the-money/ http://unicornfree.com/2011/follow-the-money/ [2] http://unicornfree.com/2011/dont-let-the-bastards-grind-you-down/ http://unicornfree.com/2011/dont-let-the-bastards-grind-you-...
• webwright 16y ago
  "Secondly, the 'vocal' people are the people trying to make you start a big business." As a guy who respects both paths (and has gone down both), I'd say I see more people advocating against a swing-for-the-fences path ("VCs will eat your babies, take control, force you to take insane risks, make you work insane hours, and you'll die penniless 99.9999% of the time!") than advocating against a happy-lifestyle business path. In fact, Alex's post is the first time I've ever read anyone actually saying, "If you're smart, DON'T do a small business that makes you happy! Aim higher." The lifestyle zealots, to me, seem a lot more vocal/angry. The go-big zealots honestly just seem puzzled... If you're going to quit your job and start something, why wouldn't you attack a huge opportunity? They just don't get that some folks have different motivations than money/fame/world-changing. The idea that EITHER group tells you what you should do with your life is disgusting to me. For what it's worth, raising venture capital and working VCs made me perfectly happy. My first bootstrapped business actually made me pretty miserable. For the right startup, I'd raise money again in a heartbeat. Whether you raise money or aim big depends entirely on what you care about and how much cash you need to pull it off.
  • ahoyhere 16y ago
    We are more vocal because we are in a tiny minority, constantly trashed (e.g. "lifestyle business"), and most of the people who are "living the life" are too busy running their own businesses to blog. Or they don't see it as a movement, like I do.
    • webwright 16y ago
      Yeah, it's the "constantly trashed" that I never see. "Lifestyle business" isn't an insult-- it's a perfectly valid label for a lot of businesses (those that prioritize lifestyle over growth). Bootstrapped is another good label-- for those that don't necessary avoid growth, but don't (or can't) raise or borrow money. And other that Alex's post, I can't recall anyone taking the time to write a post trashing lifestyle businesses or bootstrapping or whatever you want to call it (I guess the latter could imply more ambition while the former might imply maximizing reward for as little effort as you can get away with). Granted, we celebrate "go-big-or-go-home" folks (in the news and on HN)... That's nothing new-- humans have celebrated daring forever. It sells newspapers and generates pageviews. On the other hand, I feel like I can rattle off a long list of "VCs will eat your baby" bloggers. Yours, 37s, the LessEverything guys, the folks at Jackson Fish Market, etc. I love all of your blogs and all of your products-- but I just don't get the rage (though I think you were perfectly justified in blowing up at Alex, btw).