4 ms·

CH blog post comment is so true (can't hard link to it): There is a fundamental difference in philosophy here. Some startups work 24/7 because they ar

by alberth 15y ago

CH blog post comment is so true (can't hard link to it): There is a fundamental difference in philosophy here. Some startups work 24/7 because they are “swinging for the fences” (to use a baseball analogy). Where other startups, like yourself [37signals] back in the day, are content with simply hitting “singles”. .... Here’s the philosophical difference, you can live a good life on hitting singles, but you’ll never become filthy rich unless you swing for the fences.

jdminhbg 15y ago
DHH seems to have gotten plenty "filthy rich" hitting singles: http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/racing http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/racing People who swing for the fences generally fly out to shallow center. You can score lots of runs hitting single after single after single.
- alberth 15y ago
  Having a sports car fits into the "you can live a good life on hitting singles". Having your own private jet, is when you're filthy rich.
  - kerryfalk 15y ago
    This is well beyond your neighbour owning a Ferrari. It takes serious money to race in those leagues. And if I recall correctly I remember seeing a video of him racing one of my personal favourites, an Aston Martin V12 Vantage (Could have been a DB9/DBS, can't recall exactly). I would personally consider anyone who can drop six figures annually on a hobby filthy rich. The one's "living a good life" did the kind of racing I used to do, and the wealthy guys there only dropped 20-30k/ year racing around in parking lots.
  - rahoulb 15y ago
    Well the sports car in question is a one-off custom-build, purely for him, and rumoured to have cost a few millions of dollars. Not quite a private jet, but I would put that into "filthy rich" UPDATE: Link - http://www.luxist.com/2010/09/06/one-of-a-kind-pagani-zonda-hh-commissioned-by-chicago-software-m/ http://www.luxist.com/2010/09/06/one-of-a-kind-pagani-zonda-...
- fuzzylizard 15y ago
  I always find it interesting that Babe Ruth was, at the same time, the home run leader and the strike out leader. If you swing for the fences, chances are, you will fail more than you win. Hitting singles, consistently, is actually far more beneficial for both you and the team that you work with.
  - jtbigwoo 15y ago
    A sports-geek quibble: Babe Ruth also had the second-best career on-base-percentage in the history of baseball. He hit a ton of singles in addition to his home runs. He was an incredible athlete and defied the current mindset to try for home runs when he thought the time was right. Sometimes he got fooled and ended up striking out, but he wasn't a pure swing-for-the-fences hitter. (You should look to somebody like Rob Deer if you're looking for someone who swung for the fences almost all the time.)
    - xiaoma 15y ago
      To further your point, the very highest on base % player ever was none other than Barry Bonds, the greatest HR hitter ever. The mere threat of him connecting was enough to convince record numbers of opponents let him walk for free... much like moves by Zuck now or billg back in the day sent everyone else in the tech world scrambling. Singles are nice. I'd love to have an Ichiro on my team. But I'd take top notch slugger over him any day.
- raldi 15y ago
  See, for example, the 2002 Angels.
jcampbell1 15y ago
Does commissioning a custom supercar not count as filthy rich? What can Mark Zuckerberg buy that Jason Fried and DHH cannot? The big difference is that 37signals didn't make a bunch of VCs filthy rich, just themselves. http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/07/pagani-zonda-hh-commissioner-revealed-as-30-year-old-chicago-sof/ http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/07/pagani-zonda-hh-commissio...
- alberth 15y ago
  Having a sports car fits into the "you can live a good life on hitting singles". Having your own private jet, is when you're filthy rich.
- PaulAnunda 15y ago
  a 747. all joking aside, Zuckerberg is in a different league monetarily. if you aspire to have that type of wealth, then good for you. if you're content w/ 'hitting singles' and hopefully bringing in enough to live the kind of lifestyle you'd like, then more power to you.
brown9-2 15y ago
This presumes that all 24/7 startups are working 24/7 because of the "swinging for the fences" idea - because they need to rush to build something before someone else does - and that they aren't doing so because they think it's the only way to work. While some 24/7 startups are 24/7 because of a true need, surely some amount must also think they need to work in perpetual crunch mode because "that's just how startups work"
thesash 15y ago
From my response to this comment on the blog: If "swinging for the fences" requires 24/7 work, chances are you're not focused enough, not validating your ideas fast enough, and from my experience, you're probably wasting a huge amount of your time doing on inefficient work or unnecessary stuff that will be scrapped entirely. That being said, starting small and focused does not eliminate the possibility of building something big. To build on your baseball analogy-- who wins more games, the team with the most homeruns or the team with the most hits? 37 Signals proves the analogy-- a series of simple, focused, products, that started small and have achieved massive success.
- raldi 15y ago
  > who wins more games, the team with the most homeruns or the team with the most hits? Actually, it doesn't look like either is much more indicative than the other: http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/sort/homeRuns/order/true http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/sort/homeRu... http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/sort/hits/order/true http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/sort/hits/o... http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings
huggyface 15y ago
Can you give examples of some of these companies "swinging for the fences"? Often it comes down to execution competence. I've seen self-titled startups put in incredible effort...and then come out with something that should have been a weekend project. I've seen casual weekend projects turn into brilliance. I would offer up that many of those who have to work "24/7" do so as a poor alternative to competence/ability. Some of them, on the flipside, barely put in fulltime hours of real work, but maintain so little self-control and discipline, so focused on the display of heroics, that they seemingly always need to work. Perhaps that's cynical, but I've never read a story where people legitimately put in an incredible effort and yielded a corresponding output.

by alberth 15y ago

jdminhbg 15y ago

DHH seems to have gotten plenty "filthy rich" hitting singles: http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/racing http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/racing People who swing for the fences generally fly out to shallow center. You can score lots of runs hitting single after single after single.

alberth 15y ago
Having a sports car fits into the "you can live a good life on hitting singles". Having your own private jet, is when you're filthy rich.
- kerryfalk 15y ago
  This is well beyond your neighbour owning a Ferrari. It takes serious money to race in those leagues. And if I recall correctly I remember seeing a video of him racing one of my personal favourites, an Aston Martin V12 Vantage (Could have been a DB9/DBS, can't recall exactly). I would personally consider anyone who can drop six figures annually on a hobby filthy rich. The one's "living a good life" did the kind of racing I used to do, and the wealthy guys there only dropped 20-30k/ year racing around in parking lots.
- rahoulb 15y ago
  Well the sports car in question is a one-off custom-build, purely for him, and rumoured to have cost a few millions of dollars. Not quite a private jet, but I would put that into "filthy rich" UPDATE: Link - http://www.luxist.com/2010/09/06/one-of-a-kind-pagani-zonda-hh-commissioned-by-chicago-software-m/ http://www.luxist.com/2010/09/06/one-of-a-kind-pagani-zonda-...
fuzzylizard 15y ago
I always find it interesting that Babe Ruth was, at the same time, the home run leader and the strike out leader. If you swing for the fences, chances are, you will fail more than you win. Hitting singles, consistently, is actually far more beneficial for both you and the team that you work with.
- jtbigwoo 15y ago
  A sports-geek quibble: Babe Ruth also had the second-best career on-base-percentage in the history of baseball. He hit a ton of singles in addition to his home runs. He was an incredible athlete and defied the current mindset to try for home runs when he thought the time was right. Sometimes he got fooled and ended up striking out, but he wasn't a pure swing-for-the-fences hitter. (You should look to somebody like Rob Deer if you're looking for someone who swung for the fences almost all the time.)
  - xiaoma 15y ago
    To further your point, the very highest on base % player ever was none other than Barry Bonds, the greatest HR hitter ever. The mere threat of him connecting was enough to convince record numbers of opponents let him walk for free... much like moves by Zuck now or billg back in the day sent everyone else in the tech world scrambling. Singles are nice. I'd love to have an Ichiro on my team. But I'd take top notch slugger over him any day.
raldi 15y ago
See, for example, the 2002 Angels.

jcampbell1 15y ago

Does commissioning a custom supercar not count as filthy rich? What can Mark Zuckerberg buy that Jason Fried and DHH cannot? The big difference is that 37signals didn't make a bunch of VCs filthy rich, just themselves. http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/07/pagani-zonda-hh-commissioner-revealed-as-30-year-old-chicago-sof/ http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/07/pagani-zonda-hh-commissio...

alberth 15y ago
Having a sports car fits into the "you can live a good life on hitting singles". Having your own private jet, is when you're filthy rich.
PaulAnunda 15y ago
a 747. all joking aside, Zuckerberg is in a different league monetarily. if you aspire to have that type of wealth, then good for you. if you're content w/ 'hitting singles' and hopefully bringing in enough to live the kind of lifestyle you'd like, then more power to you.

brown9-2 15y ago

This presumes that all 24/7 startups are working 24/7 because of the "swinging for the fences" idea - because they need to rush to build something before someone else does - and that they aren't doing so because they think it's the only way to work. While some 24/7 startups are 24/7 because of a true need, surely some amount must also think they need to work in perpetual crunch mode because "that's just how startups work"

thesash 15y ago

From my response to this comment on the blog: If "swinging for the fences" requires 24/7 work, chances are you're not focused enough, not validating your ideas fast enough, and from my experience, you're probably wasting a huge amount of your time doing on inefficient work or unnecessary stuff that will be scrapped entirely. That being said, starting small and focused does not eliminate the possibility of building something big. To build on your baseball analogy-- who wins more games, the team with the most homeruns or the team with the most hits? 37 Signals proves the analogy-- a series of simple, focused, products, that started small and have achieved massive success.

raldi 15y ago
> who wins more games, the team with the most homeruns or the team with the most hits? Actually, it doesn't look like either is much more indicative than the other: http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/sort/homeRuns/order/true http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/sort/homeRu... http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/sort/hits/order/true http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/sort/hits/o... http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings

huggyface 15y ago

Can you give examples of some of these companies "swinging for the fences"? Often it comes down to execution competence. I've seen self-titled startups put in incredible effort...and then come out with something that should have been a weekend project. I've seen casual weekend projects turn into brilliance. I would offer up that many of those who have to work "24/7" do so as a poor alternative to competence/ability. Some of them, on the flipside, barely put in fulltime hours of real work, but maintain so little self-control and discipline, so focused on the display of heroics, that they seemingly always need to work. Perhaps that's cynical, but I've never read a story where people legitimately put in an incredible effort and yielded a corresponding output.