5 ms·

What he's criticizing is doing a startup specifically so that it could be flipped later. If you are in it to build a real company, you actually go through the

by veyron 15y ago

What he's criticizing is doing a startup specifically so that it could be flipped later. If you are in it to build a real company, you actually go through the hard work that Jobs is talking about. Did you start viaweb to sell it to someone else later, or did you start it to build an actual sustainable business?

daleharvey 15y ago
Would it be less or more worthy of criticism if pg had specifically planned to sell viaweb and start ycombinator?
- tlammens 15y ago
  I would say no, it can be the necessary stepping stone to something else. In that case it can be a stepping stone for both the sellers and the buyers whom did not have the "right" people for the job yet, but by selling got the people who could do it.
pg 15y ago
We started it to sell. We were not interested in online stores. Some of the problems were kind of interesting, but neither I nor Robert nor Trevor thought of Viaweb as our life's work. Incidentally, building a business to sell doesn't mean it can't be sustainable. Viaweb made Yahoo lots of money.
- izak30 15y ago
  You attacked that sort of thinking a couple of times at Startup School events. In certain ways, it was troublesome, because I like to think that's the sort of person I am, or the business that I want to start. But now hearing you say again (paraphrase) "we did it this way, and we liked some of the problems, but really we thought it was just a great opportunity" is promising. Is what you're trying to say, that the 'best' startups are usually founded by people who have deep emotional ties about the problems they're solving? (say, anybots, facebook, google) but that it can still work with the right people and the right ideas/timing (viaweb, slide, FriendFeed(?)). IF YCs stance is to pick the former as much as possible (or all the time). What can a valley outsider do to get the later started? Sorry, this is the type of question I would have loved to ask at startup school, it just took a couple of days to formulate.
  - aswanson 15y ago
    One way of looking at it was that the problem Paul was trying to solve was: "How can I stop spending the majority of my waking hours working on things that I don't care about in languages and working environments that are soul-killing? Eureka! I'll condense that uncomfortable period by using the most powerful tools and techniques at my disposal (which I happen to love) and be done with it."
  - pg 15y ago
    I'm not sure what sort of thinking you think I attacked, but I'm not against people starting startups to sell them. I think it's a mistake when people come up with startup ideas by trying to think of startup ideas, instead of looking for real problems that need solving. But you can be working on real problems and still intend to sell the company.
    - izak30 15y ago
      What was in my mind is more like what you describe as "Doodling" in [http://paulgraham.com/ideas.html http://paulgraham.com/ideas.html]. NOT the type thinking that gets you with the next social geofenced daily deal. There is some differentiator between the two that I think instinctively I understand, but quantitatively I haven't been able to describe. EDIT: First crack at a description: You want an idea that solves a problem, not starts a startup, and sometimes a startup is a decent vehicle for the solution.
- breck 15y ago
  > We were not interested in online stores. Some of the problems were kind of interesting, but neither me nor Robert nor Trevor thought of Viaweb as our life's work. 'How to find your "life's work"' might make a great essay. I think the majority of founders find themselves a few years in working on ideas they aren't crazy about. In a sense founders get married to ideas too young, realize it's not a perfect fit, and then an "acquisition" is basically a divorce between them and the idea.
  - pg 15y ago
    http://paulgraham.com/love.html http://paulgraham.com/love.html http://paulgraham.com/hs.html http://paulgraham.com/hs.html
    - away 15y ago
      Well you obviously weren't doing what you love with viaweb if your entire goal was to sell it to turn a profit so that you'd never have to deal with it again. And Steve's assertion is not about work ethic, it's about building a "real company". I don't think Steve would consider you to be a real entrepreneur. In his biography, it's stated several times how he doesn't want to make things just because people want them, which is directly against your beliefs in pandering to the masses.
      - RussRomStanBety 15y ago
        I don't think Steve Jobs would ever say anything of sorts. Jobs did the exact same thing with NeXT. Does that mean that he didn't consider himself an entrepreneur? Human emotion plays a big role in our decision making and you can't have the same feelings for every project you start.
        staunch 15y ago
        He didn't start NeXT with the intention of selling it. He was trying re-create Apple from scratch. Instead he ended up parlaying it into a take-over of Apple and re-created it from within. I'm not weighing in on the definition of "entrepreneur" here, just pointing out why NeXT isn't a counter example.
- EGreg 15y ago
  I think you are successful partly because you got the right people together to make viaweb and sold it. Now you are able to do much more with your life. It's interesting that when one dreams big (as I do), that sometimes gets in the way of making your first startup have a successful exit. We are working on a huge thing and partly creating a new market, and unfortunately had no time to follow my own advice and flip a company first. Wish I did, I think I would have been ahead of where I am today.
ColinHayhurst 15y ago
I too mostly "hate it when people call THEMSELVES entrepreneurs". But I do love it when people say and prove that they are looking to change the world. If that involves building and selling a company, then why not? By selling Viaweb and then growing YC, pg has done more to change the world than he could have done by staying put.
FaceKicker 15y ago
What exactly do people view as "wrong" about building a company to sell? Companies are sold because it's in the interest of both parties involved in the transaction, so it must serve some legitimate function in the economy. Perhaps it's a little different if they're bought by a larger company only to eliminate the smaller competitor, but I doubt that's why buyouts usually happen. It seems really silly to me to criticize someone for wanting a high payoff to labor ratio or not wanting to dedicate their life to everything they do, but I don't know - what's the reasoning?

by veyron 15y ago

daleharvey 15y ago

Would it be less or more worthy of criticism if pg had specifically planned to sell viaweb and start ycombinator?

tlammens 15y ago
I would say no, it can be the necessary stepping stone to something else. In that case it can be a stepping stone for both the sellers and the buyers whom did not have the "right" people for the job yet, but by selling got the people who could do it.

pg 15y ago

We started it to sell. We were not interested in online stores. Some of the problems were kind of interesting, but neither I nor Robert nor Trevor thought of Viaweb as our life's work. Incidentally, building a business to sell doesn't mean it can't be sustainable. Viaweb made Yahoo lots of money.

izak30 15y ago
You attacked that sort of thinking a couple of times at Startup School events. In certain ways, it was troublesome, because I like to think that's the sort of person I am, or the business that I want to start. But now hearing you say again (paraphrase) "we did it this way, and we liked some of the problems, but really we thought it was just a great opportunity" is promising. Is what you're trying to say, that the 'best' startups are usually founded by people who have deep emotional ties about the problems they're solving? (say, anybots, facebook, google) but that it can still work with the right people and the right ideas/timing (viaweb, slide, FriendFeed(?)). IF YCs stance is to pick the former as much as possible (or all the time). What can a valley outsider do to get the later started? Sorry, this is the type of question I would have loved to ask at startup school, it just took a couple of days to formulate.
- aswanson 15y ago
  One way of looking at it was that the problem Paul was trying to solve was: "How can I stop spending the majority of my waking hours working on things that I don't care about in languages and working environments that are soul-killing? Eureka! I'll condense that uncomfortable period by using the most powerful tools and techniques at my disposal (which I happen to love) and be done with it."
- pg 15y ago
  I'm not sure what sort of thinking you think I attacked, but I'm not against people starting startups to sell them. I think it's a mistake when people come up with startup ideas by trying to think of startup ideas, instead of looking for real problems that need solving. But you can be working on real problems and still intend to sell the company.
  - izak30 15y ago
    What was in my mind is more like what you describe as "Doodling" in [http://paulgraham.com/ideas.html http://paulgraham.com/ideas.html]. NOT the type thinking that gets you with the next social geofenced daily deal. There is some differentiator between the two that I think instinctively I understand, but quantitatively I haven't been able to describe. EDIT: First crack at a description: You want an idea that solves a problem, not starts a startup, and sometimes a startup is a decent vehicle for the solution.
breck 15y ago
> We were not interested in online stores. Some of the problems were kind of interesting, but neither me nor Robert nor Trevor thought of Viaweb as our life's work. 'How to find your "life's work"' might make a great essay. I think the majority of founders find themselves a few years in working on ideas they aren't crazy about. In a sense founders get married to ideas too young, realize it's not a perfect fit, and then an "acquisition" is basically a divorce between them and the idea.
- pg 15y ago
  http://paulgraham.com/love.html http://paulgraham.com/love.html http://paulgraham.com/hs.html http://paulgraham.com/hs.html
  - away 15y ago
    Well you obviously weren't doing what you love with viaweb if your entire goal was to sell it to turn a profit so that you'd never have to deal with it again. And Steve's assertion is not about work ethic, it's about building a "real company". I don't think Steve would consider you to be a real entrepreneur. In his biography, it's stated several times how he doesn't want to make things just because people want them, which is directly against your beliefs in pandering to the masses.
    - RussRomStanBety 15y ago
      I don't think Steve Jobs would ever say anything of sorts. Jobs did the exact same thing with NeXT. Does that mean that he didn't consider himself an entrepreneur? Human emotion plays a big role in our decision making and you can't have the same feelings for every project you start.
      - staunch 15y ago
        He didn't start NeXT with the intention of selling it. He was trying re-create Apple from scratch. Instead he ended up parlaying it into a take-over of Apple and re-created it from within. I'm not weighing in on the definition of "entrepreneur" here, just pointing out why NeXT isn't a counter example.
EGreg 15y ago
I think you are successful partly because you got the right people together to make viaweb and sold it. Now you are able to do much more with your life. It's interesting that when one dreams big (as I do), that sometimes gets in the way of making your first startup have a successful exit. We are working on a huge thing and partly creating a new market, and unfortunately had no time to follow my own advice and flip a company first. Wish I did, I think I would have been ahead of where I am today.

ColinHayhurst 15y ago

I too mostly "hate it when people call THEMSELVES entrepreneurs". But I do love it when people say and prove that they are looking to change the world. If that involves building and selling a company, then why not? By selling Viaweb and then growing YC, pg has done more to change the world than he could have done by staying put.

FaceKicker 15y ago

What exactly do people view as "wrong" about building a company to sell? Companies are sold because it's in the interest of both parties involved in the transaction, so it must serve some legitimate function in the economy. Perhaps it's a little different if they're bought by a larger company only to eliminate the smaller competitor, but I doubt that's why buyouts usually happen. It seems really silly to me to criticize someone for wanting a high payoff to labor ratio or not wanting to dedicate their life to everything they do, but I don't know - what's the reasoning?