4 ms·

All three would have been better companies today, and along the way, if the founders would have been more mature. They just wouldn't have gotten as early of a

All three would have been better companies today, and along the way, if the founders would have been more mature. They just wouldn't have gotten as early of a start. Edit: Not my downvote. Corrective upvote in fact.

scarface74 4y ago
If the purpose of a for profit company is to make a profit and keep shareholders happy. How much “better” could Microsoft and Apple be than 2 of the top 5 most valuable companies in the US?
- oska 4y ago
  Your starting assumption is invalid.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    So what do you think the purpose of a for profit public company is?
    - oska 4y ago
      The goals the company was founded to meet. Profit is necessary to stay in business so it's important. But it can't be the only and exclusive goal. A company is just a structure to make things happen / collectively achieve things.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        The goal of every company for profit company is fact to make its investors money. Do you really think that any investor cared about anything besides making money? Please don’t tell me that you believe in sone BS “mission statement” that companies spout? Did you also believe Google’s “Don’t be Evil” motto thru had for years?
        oska 4y ago
        You're pushing a harmful, cynical and ultimately nihilistic agenda here. I've seen the same line pushed many times since it became 'en vogue' in the 80s but ultimately dating back to an influential Milton Friedman paper published in the early 70s. I reject it but I frankly also find it tedious to argue against it because those pushing it usually remain ideologically (neoliberalism) wedded to it. But if you do actually want to have your thinking challenged, there are many serious essays that have been written to contest the 'maximizing shareholder value' line. One I pulled up just quickly challenges it through Peter Drucker's views on the purpose of business. Quoting that : > Profit and profitability are absolute requirements. That is why even non-profit corporations must strive mightily for profitability. However, this does not mean that profit is the basic purpose of a business. Profitability really is an essential ingredient by itself which might be better spoken of in terms of an optimal, rather than a maximum size. In support of this thesis, Drucker noted that the primary test of any business is not the maximization of profit, but the achievement of sufficient profit to allow for the risks of the financial activity of the business, and thus to avoid catastrophic loss leading to failure. And we might add, achieve the success which would benefit both the business and society. So profit is necessary, but [not] the purpose of business. https://www.hrexchangenetwork.com/hr-talent-management/columns/the-purpose-of-business-is-not-to-make-a-profi https://www.hrexchangenetwork.com/hr-talent-management/colum...
        scarface74 4y ago
        What is “nihilistic” about it? Why do you think investors invest in a company? Why do you think founders create companies? Most tech companies don’t desire to be “lifestyle companies” where they just want to make enough of a profit to support themselves. Most are looking for an “exit” which is statistically going to be an acquisition. For instance, out of all the companies that YC has invested in, less than a dozen have gone public. And once you either accept outside funding, you are immediately at the mercy of the investors whose only goal is to make a profit. And honestly what Drucker thinks is irrelevant. What’s relevant is what the owners of the companies want - either public or private companies. What do you think the pension funds and mutual funds want when they own stock in a company? What do you want from your retirement accounts?
- jjk166 4y ago
  More profit and happier shareholders. Can you imagine what apple could have achieved if they didn't force Steve Jobs out for a decade?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    It probably would have been in worse shape. SJ needed the time to mature. Don’t forget that as late as 1993, Apple was worth more than MS and it was going back and forth with HP to be the number one PC seller. Things started going south around the time of Windows 95 - only two years before he came back.
    - fuzzfactor 4y ago
      Another corrective upvote. We can't all define "better" exactly the same way, but I think it can be agreed there were mistakes due to immaturity that would not have ocurred otherwise.

scarface74 4y ago

If the purpose of a for profit company is to make a profit and keep shareholders happy. How much “better” could Microsoft and Apple be than 2 of the top 5 most valuable companies in the US?

oska 4y ago
Your starting assumption is invalid.
- scarface74 4y ago
  So what do you think the purpose of a for profit public company is?
  - oska 4y ago
    The goals the company was founded to meet. Profit is necessary to stay in business so it's important. But it can't be the only and exclusive goal. A company is just a structure to make things happen / collectively achieve things.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      The goal of every company for profit company is fact to make its investors money. Do you really think that any investor cared about anything besides making money? Please don’t tell me that you believe in sone BS “mission statement” that companies spout? Did you also believe Google’s “Don’t be Evil” motto thru had for years?
      - oska 4y ago
        You're pushing a harmful, cynical and ultimately nihilistic agenda here. I've seen the same line pushed many times since it became 'en vogue' in the 80s but ultimately dating back to an influential Milton Friedman paper published in the early 70s. I reject it but I frankly also find it tedious to argue against it because those pushing it usually remain ideologically (neoliberalism) wedded to it. But if you do actually want to have your thinking challenged, there are many serious essays that have been written to contest the 'maximizing shareholder value' line. One I pulled up just quickly challenges it through Peter Drucker's views on the purpose of business. Quoting that : > Profit and profitability are absolute requirements. That is why even non-profit corporations must strive mightily for profitability. However, this does not mean that profit is the basic purpose of a business. Profitability really is an essential ingredient by itself which might be better spoken of in terms of an optimal, rather than a maximum size. In support of this thesis, Drucker noted that the primary test of any business is not the maximization of profit, but the achievement of sufficient profit to allow for the risks of the financial activity of the business, and thus to avoid catastrophic loss leading to failure. And we might add, achieve the success which would benefit both the business and society. So profit is necessary, but [not] the purpose of business. https://www.hrexchangenetwork.com/hr-talent-management/columns/the-purpose-of-business-is-not-to-make-a-profi https://www.hrexchangenetwork.com/hr-talent-management/colum...
        scarface74 4y ago
        What is “nihilistic” about it? Why do you think investors invest in a company? Why do you think founders create companies? Most tech companies don’t desire to be “lifestyle companies” where they just want to make enough of a profit to support themselves. Most are looking for an “exit” which is statistically going to be an acquisition. For instance, out of all the companies that YC has invested in, less than a dozen have gone public. And once you either accept outside funding, you are immediately at the mercy of the investors whose only goal is to make a profit. And honestly what Drucker thinks is irrelevant. What’s relevant is what the owners of the companies want - either public or private companies. What do you think the pension funds and mutual funds want when they own stock in a company? What do you want from your retirement accounts?
jjk166 4y ago
More profit and happier shareholders. Can you imagine what apple could have achieved if they didn't force Steve Jobs out for a decade?
- scarface74 4y ago
  It probably would have been in worse shape. SJ needed the time to mature. Don’t forget that as late as 1993, Apple was worth more than MS and it was going back and forth with HP to be the number one PC seller. Things started going south around the time of Windows 95 - only two years before he came back.
  - fuzzfactor 4y ago
    Another corrective upvote. We can't all define "better" exactly the same way, but I think it can be agreed there were mistakes due to immaturity that would not have ocurred otherwise.