5 ms·

It's amazing to me how HN nonstop celebrates everyone raising money on bullshit rehashed tech ideas but are shitting on this guy for selling to NYT. He built an

It's amazing to me how HN nonstop celebrates everyone raising money on bullshit rehashed tech ideas but are shitting on this guy for selling to NYT. He built and sold something unlike the vast majority ever will.

nerdponx 5y ago
The people who show up in "tech person does a thing" threads to fawn over said tech person are probably not the same people who complain about ad surveillance by the NYT.
ridaj 5y ago
Oh I don't mean to shit on the creator. We all got bills to pay. Mad props to him for getting a great payout and moving on. But does the result count as a "nice thing on the Internet"? I can be the judge of that and IMO no at this point it's just one of a million free casual games awaiting some monetization bullshit.
- foolfoolz 5y ago
  this comment is why we can’t have nice things on the internet
  - ridaj 5y ago
    I do think there's a ton of nice things on the Internet. The FOSS community as a whole and Wikipedia are astounding in their civilization-transforming, anti-capitalistic effect on society. 20 years ago people paid Microsoft for the only half-decent productivity software around, Internet Explorer and freaking Encarta, for crying out loud. I don't think wordle is nearly close to the same level especially after getting bought.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    Why? What does this comment have to do with it?
    - yupper32 5y ago
      Because it was a comment written without having any context into how NYT handles their games. They assume something about massive monetization that would happen in the future, when the daily wordle will likely remain free forever, just like most other daily games that NYT has.
      - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
        Ah yes, NYT bought it for completely altruistic reasons. /s
        TAKEMYMONEY 5y ago
        The person you're replying to is implying the opposite; they bought it to attract subscribers.
- paulcole 5y ago
  Easy to tell someone else to rip up their winning lottery ticket. Much harder to rip up the winning lottery ticket in your own hand.
- yupper32 5y ago
  > But does the result count as a "nice thing on the Internet"? I can be the judge of that and IMO no at this point it's just one of a million free casual games awaiting some monetization bullshit. I don't understand the thought process. NYT has a bunch of daily mini games that are free and have been for a while. Only the full crossword and the archives are paid. Did you write this comment before doing any research into how NYT handles their games?
  - ridaj 5y ago
    > Did you write this comment before doing any research into how NYT handles their games? I'm somewhat aware of how it works. > NYT has a bunch of daily mini games that are free and have been for a while. Only the full crossword and the archives are paid. Well it's like I'm a fish complaining about the fisherman's worm having a hook in it, and you're saying but at least there's a good worm. Free tier games on NYT clearly serve as feeder for subscriptions. Here's an example of NYT juicing someone's "high" following a free game of spelling bee, in order to push them to subscribe. https://pasteboard.co/pIS5qkZcXkNB.jpg https://pasteboard.co/pIS5qkZcXkNB.jpg I hate this kind of manipulation. Again can't blame the NYT for responding to competitive pressure but the free portion of their game is such an obvious attempt to hook gaming subscribers that I personally really don't see it as a "nice thing".
    - TAKEMYMONEY 5y ago
      > Mad props to him for getting a great payout You can't have your "mad props" and eat them too. Either he sells and you have to suffer the horror of a nag screen to get a free game, or he doesn't, and you don't.
      - ridaj 5y ago
        Sure but I'm still happy for the guy. I don't expect he or anyone to want to make nice things for the Internet.
lostlogin 5y ago
Maybe he needed to sell some of it to the NYT in series A, with another round after 6 months to 2 years, but being careful not to go too soon or too late. After correctly judging the runway and managing the burn rate following series B, more marketing and branding before series C would maximise value for the creator.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
  Where he messed up was not making a blog post announcing the end to an incredible journey.
baryphonic 5y ago
> HN nonstop celebrates everyone raising money on bullshit rehashed tech ideas but are shitting on this guy for selling to NYT Selling out to NYT is almost like selling out to Xi or Putin.
- rchaud 5y ago
  Only trusted entities need apply. What, Google and Facebook are interested? Come right in, sirs! /s
cr1895 5y ago
One can be happy for the creator’s individual (and deserved) success, while at the same time begrudge the fundamental change brought about by its acquisition. Simply saying “everyone shits on this guy” is not really helpful, or accurate.
tobr 5y ago
Right, almost as if this community of thousands of people has multiple personality disorder.

nerdponx 5y ago

The people who show up in "tech person does a thing" threads to fawn over said tech person are probably not the same people who complain about ad surveillance by the NYT.

ridaj 5y ago

Oh I don't mean to shit on the creator. We all got bills to pay. Mad props to him for getting a great payout and moving on. But does the result count as a "nice thing on the Internet"? I can be the judge of that and IMO no at this point it's just one of a million free casual games awaiting some monetization bullshit.

foolfoolz 5y ago
this comment is why we can’t have nice things on the internet
- ridaj 5y ago
  I do think there's a ton of nice things on the Internet. The FOSS community as a whole and Wikipedia are astounding in their civilization-transforming, anti-capitalistic effect on society. 20 years ago people paid Microsoft for the only half-decent productivity software around, Internet Explorer and freaking Encarta, for crying out loud. I don't think wordle is nearly close to the same level especially after getting bought.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  Why? What does this comment have to do with it?
  - yupper32 5y ago
    Because it was a comment written without having any context into how NYT handles their games. They assume something about massive monetization that would happen in the future, when the daily wordle will likely remain free forever, just like most other daily games that NYT has.
    - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
      Ah yes, NYT bought it for completely altruistic reasons. /s
      - TAKEMYMONEY 5y ago
        The person you're replying to is implying the opposite; they bought it to attract subscribers.
paulcole 5y ago
Easy to tell someone else to rip up their winning lottery ticket. Much harder to rip up the winning lottery ticket in your own hand.
yupper32 5y ago
> But does the result count as a "nice thing on the Internet"? I can be the judge of that and IMO no at this point it's just one of a million free casual games awaiting some monetization bullshit. I don't understand the thought process. NYT has a bunch of daily mini games that are free and have been for a while. Only the full crossword and the archives are paid. Did you write this comment before doing any research into how NYT handles their games?
- ridaj 5y ago
  > Did you write this comment before doing any research into how NYT handles their games? I'm somewhat aware of how it works. > NYT has a bunch of daily mini games that are free and have been for a while. Only the full crossword and the archives are paid. Well it's like I'm a fish complaining about the fisherman's worm having a hook in it, and you're saying but at least there's a good worm. Free tier games on NYT clearly serve as feeder for subscriptions. Here's an example of NYT juicing someone's "high" following a free game of spelling bee, in order to push them to subscribe. https://pasteboard.co/pIS5qkZcXkNB.jpg https://pasteboard.co/pIS5qkZcXkNB.jpg I hate this kind of manipulation. Again can't blame the NYT for responding to competitive pressure but the free portion of their game is such an obvious attempt to hook gaming subscribers that I personally really don't see it as a "nice thing".
  - TAKEMYMONEY 5y ago
    > Mad props to him for getting a great payout You can't have your "mad props" and eat them too. Either he sells and you have to suffer the horror of a nag screen to get a free game, or he doesn't, and you don't.
    - ridaj 5y ago
      Sure but I'm still happy for the guy. I don't expect he or anyone to want to make nice things for the Internet.

lostlogin 5y ago

Maybe he needed to sell some of it to the NYT in series A, with another round after 6 months to 2 years, but being careful not to go too soon or too late. After correctly judging the runway and managing the burn rate following series B, more marketing and branding before series C would maximise value for the creator.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
Where he messed up was not making a blog post announcing the end to an incredible journey.

baryphonic 5y ago

> HN nonstop celebrates everyone raising money on bullshit rehashed tech ideas but are shitting on this guy for selling to NYT Selling out to NYT is almost like selling out to Xi or Putin.

rchaud 5y ago
Only trusted entities need apply. What, Google and Facebook are interested? Come right in, sirs! /s

cr1895 5y ago

One can be happy for the creator’s individual (and deserved) success, while at the same time begrudge the fundamental change brought about by its acquisition. Simply saying “everyone shits on this guy” is not really helpful, or accurate.

tobr 5y ago

Right, almost as if this community of thousands of people has multiple personality disorder.