4 ms·

I found this needlessly nihilistic. The public wasn't suckered by Hsieh's generation. Enough of us found shopping for shoes at Zappos to be nice enough that we

I found this needlessly nihilistic. The public wasn't suckered by Hsieh's generation. Enough of us found shopping for shoes at Zappos to be nice enough that we kept doing it. It was an improvement. A bigger problem is when journalists and the world expect there to be more to the whole story than a simple successful business model.

noobermin 3y ago
>A bigger problem is when journalists and the world expect there to be more to the whole story than a simple successful business model. There are 90 million other unsuccessful business models that look identical to this business model. A remarked on point by the piece is a lot of it is luck, and methods matter only secondarily.
- prmph 3y ago
  I've been thinking about this for quite a while, and I don't think its luck in the sense that one might think of it. There is something that separates people who care very much about providing real value; they are not common. Yes, thousands of e-commerce businesses might have attempted to take off, and maybe Amazon can be criticized for a lot, but every now and then I ask myself why I still shop from Amazon, and their customer focus wins the day every time. There are many major e-commerce sites (including Best Buy, JC Penney's, etc) which, when I visit without a VPN (and even sometimes with a VPN), will instantly block me simply because I'm located in Ghana. There are some that will not block me, but will cancel any order I make from them, for the same reason. There are many e-commerce businesses you can't readily contact on phone. It takes a business with a strong focus on actually solving a problem well, to actually succeed. Luck is important because this focus on providing value is not usually all that is required. Also, businesses take advantage of lock-in, rent-seeking behavior, reliance on brand reputation, and all sorts of other tricks to survive and thrive. But generally, in situation where reasonably fair competition pertains, the companies that become dominant are those that are actually doing something right to solve problems. Apple is similar. You can criticize them for many things, but I bought a Macbook years ago, and with each passing year I realize my previous problem of having to replace my laptop every two years is solved. I'm getting a new Macbook soon, but not because my daily driver is unusable. Toyota is another example. Now, one might think these business provide some value as a side-effect of their dominant position, but I don't really think so. They became dominant through a combination of strong problem solving focus and yes some luck in not going bust before they could come into their own. Even Honda wen bust a number of times, and still their quality won though.
dkarl 3y ago
I often feel like highbrow journalists allow themselves to get a little bit loose and sensationalistic when they take on the tech industry, because tech is looked down on in their circles and nobody is going to hold them to their usual standards, but I have personal experience with the myth of Tony Hsieh. Multiple coworkers have told me that Tony Hsieh's book (Delivering Happiness) changed the direction of their life, reinvigorated their enthusiasm for work, or defined how they personally approached business and personal relationships, and they recommended it to me almost evangelically. (It's on my Kindle, so far, unread beyond the first couple of pages.) I'm pretty far from the center of startup culture, both personally and geographically, and I often read things about startup culture that I never personally experience myself, so the fact that the myth of Tony Hsieh reached me makes me suspect it was a pretty big deal. Usually when people talk glowingly about tech industry titans like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, etc., they start with, "Of course he is/was a complete asshole, but...." Maybe that's how people talk about Tony Hsieh now, but for a while at least, a lot of people saw him as an inspirational person.

noobermin 3y ago

>A bigger problem is when journalists and the world expect there to be more to the whole story than a simple successful business model. There are 90 million other unsuccessful business models that look identical to this business model. A remarked on point by the piece is a lot of it is luck, and methods matter only secondarily.

prmph 3y ago
I've been thinking about this for quite a while, and I don't think its luck in the sense that one might think of it. There is something that separates people who care very much about providing real value; they are not common. Yes, thousands of e-commerce businesses might have attempted to take off, and maybe Amazon can be criticized for a lot, but every now and then I ask myself why I still shop from Amazon, and their customer focus wins the day every time. There are many major e-commerce sites (including Best Buy, JC Penney's, etc) which, when I visit without a VPN (and even sometimes with a VPN), will instantly block me simply because I'm located in Ghana. There are some that will not block me, but will cancel any order I make from them, for the same reason. There are many e-commerce businesses you can't readily contact on phone. It takes a business with a strong focus on actually solving a problem well, to actually succeed. Luck is important because this focus on providing value is not usually all that is required. Also, businesses take advantage of lock-in, rent-seeking behavior, reliance on brand reputation, and all sorts of other tricks to survive and thrive. But generally, in situation where reasonably fair competition pertains, the companies that become dominant are those that are actually doing something right to solve problems. Apple is similar. You can criticize them for many things, but I bought a Macbook years ago, and with each passing year I realize my previous problem of having to replace my laptop every two years is solved. I'm getting a new Macbook soon, but not because my daily driver is unusable. Toyota is another example. Now, one might think these business provide some value as a side-effect of their dominant position, but I don't really think so. They became dominant through a combination of strong problem solving focus and yes some luck in not going bust before they could come into their own. Even Honda wen bust a number of times, and still their quality won though.

dkarl 3y ago

I often feel like highbrow journalists allow themselves to get a little bit loose and sensationalistic when they take on the tech industry, because tech is looked down on in their circles and nobody is going to hold them to their usual standards, but I have personal experience with the myth of Tony Hsieh. Multiple coworkers have told me that Tony Hsieh's book (Delivering Happiness) changed the direction of their life, reinvigorated their enthusiasm for work, or defined how they personally approached business and personal relationships, and they recommended it to me almost evangelically. (It's on my Kindle, so far, unread beyond the first couple of pages.) I'm pretty far from the center of startup culture, both personally and geographically, and I often read things about startup culture that I never personally experience myself, so the fact that the myth of Tony Hsieh reached me makes me suspect it was a pretty big deal. Usually when people talk glowingly about tech industry titans like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, etc., they start with, "Of course he is/was a complete asshole, but...." Maybe that's how people talk about Tony Hsieh now, but for a while at least, a lot of people saw him as an inspirational person.