5 ms·

> a founder trying to disrupt an industry. a founder should be 'trying to' make a quality product that fits a need, not 'disrupt an industry' - 'industry disru

by cat199 6y ago

> a founder trying to disrupt an industry. a founder should be 'trying to' make a quality product that fits a need, not 'disrupt an industry' - 'industry disruption' is a consequence, not a goal - if one is seeking the latter without focusing on the former, ones priorities are skewed, and likely for reasons of promoting one's own self-importance.

tharne 6y ago
> a founder should be 'trying to' make a quality product that fits a need, not 'disrupt an industry' This 1000%. The frequent use of the term "disrupt", just shows how much the culture has descended into degeneracy. When entrepreneurs and their backers are no longer making even a pretense toward things like progress, improvement, or even just running a profitable business, you know things have gotten bad. It seems like the model now is, "Hey, let's see if we can f--- up industry X, who cares if we actually improve anything or if our business is even viable, so long as we turn some established part of the economy on its head."
- a123b456c 6y ago
  > The frequent use of the term "disrupt", just shows how much the culture has descended into degeneracy. This is an extraordinary claim.
  - tharne 6y ago
    > This is an extraordinary claim. How so? I would argue that folks using millions of dollars in investment capital with no real goal other than to cause disruption, regardless of whether it helps anyone or even creates a viable business, is what's extraordinary. Think for a second what a dumb goal 'disruption' is on it's own. That's what bored 15 year old's do to amuse themselves, they disrupt and break things simply to see something, anything, happen. As an earlier commenter pointed out, disruption is often a side effect of making a large change in an industry, typically in business this has meant changing something for the better. When the side effect of causing disruption becomes the main goal of a business owner rather than creating value of some sort, I really don't know what to call that other than degenerate behavior.
    - Frondo 6y ago
      "Move fast and break things" has a human cost, always, and at times the human cost can be tremendous. Ignoring that human cost is always a little sinister.
    - dukes82 6y ago
      This evokes a disturbing image of VC's gambling on disruption events, the human costs and other consequences immaterial. Very well put and I wish this viewpoint could be spread further, I found it illuminating.
ryanSrich 6y ago
Semantics. Founders building potentially billion dollar businesses (not $10m lifestyle companies) need to have a psychotic drive to achieve that goal. That often creates tough work environments in the early stages of the company. To many people, failing to build that billion dollar company is the same as outright failing completely. They’ll do whatever it takes to get there. I’ve worked with engineers and designers that like this type of environment. I’ve worked with others that thought they did until it came time to actually pull an 80 hour week. EDIT: Several downvotes, but only one reply. If you have issue with anything I said I'd appreciate a response.
- danielblank69 6y ago
  I love it how you casually mention $10m lifestyle companies as a chill, comfortable goal :)
  - ryanSrich 6y ago
    I mean, does it really make sense to target a goal of $10m valuation for a VC backed company?
    - danielblank69 6y ago
      Of course not. But it is not much easier to build a $10m lifestyle biz without VC help.
- mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
  I didnt downvote you but I'd guess it's because you're calling something "psychotic" that many on this forum aspire to or at least respect. Maybe you meant something more like "extreme" ?
  - michaelcampbell 6y ago
    > you're calling something "psychotic" that many on this forum aspire to or at least respect. Both can be true. You've no doubt seen the CEO/psychopath studies.

by cat199 6y ago

tharne 6y ago

> a founder should be 'trying to' make a quality product that fits a need, not 'disrupt an industry' This 1000%. The frequent use of the term "disrupt", just shows how much the culture has descended into degeneracy. When entrepreneurs and their backers are no longer making even a pretense toward things like progress, improvement, or even just running a profitable business, you know things have gotten bad. It seems like the model now is, "Hey, let's see if we can f--- up industry X, who cares if we actually improve anything or if our business is even viable, so long as we turn some established part of the economy on its head."

a123b456c 6y ago
> The frequent use of the term "disrupt", just shows how much the culture has descended into degeneracy. This is an extraordinary claim.
- tharne 6y ago
  > This is an extraordinary claim. How so? I would argue that folks using millions of dollars in investment capital with no real goal other than to cause disruption, regardless of whether it helps anyone or even creates a viable business, is what's extraordinary. Think for a second what a dumb goal 'disruption' is on it's own. That's what bored 15 year old's do to amuse themselves, they disrupt and break things simply to see something, anything, happen. As an earlier commenter pointed out, disruption is often a side effect of making a large change in an industry, typically in business this has meant changing something for the better. When the side effect of causing disruption becomes the main goal of a business owner rather than creating value of some sort, I really don't know what to call that other than degenerate behavior.
  - Frondo 6y ago
    "Move fast and break things" has a human cost, always, and at times the human cost can be tremendous. Ignoring that human cost is always a little sinister.
  - dukes82 6y ago
    This evokes a disturbing image of VC's gambling on disruption events, the human costs and other consequences immaterial. Very well put and I wish this viewpoint could be spread further, I found it illuminating.

ryanSrich 6y ago

Semantics. Founders building potentially billion dollar businesses (not $10m lifestyle companies) need to have a psychotic drive to achieve that goal. That often creates tough work environments in the early stages of the company. To many people, failing to build that billion dollar company is the same as outright failing completely. They’ll do whatever it takes to get there. I’ve worked with engineers and designers that like this type of environment. I’ve worked with others that thought they did until it came time to actually pull an 80 hour week. EDIT: Several downvotes, but only one reply. If you have issue with anything I said I'd appreciate a response.

danielblank69 6y ago
I love it how you casually mention $10m lifestyle companies as a chill, comfortable goal :)
- ryanSrich 6y ago
  I mean, does it really make sense to target a goal of $10m valuation for a VC backed company?
  - danielblank69 6y ago
    Of course not. But it is not much easier to build a $10m lifestyle biz without VC help.
mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
I didnt downvote you but I'd guess it's because you're calling something "psychotic" that many on this forum aspire to or at least respect. Maybe you meant something more like "extreme" ?
- michaelcampbell 6y ago
  > you're calling something "psychotic" that many on this forum aspire to or at least respect. Both can be true. You've no doubt seen the CEO/psychopath studies.