5 ms·

It feels like part of it is a cultural issue. People in the startup space largely seem uninterested in starting companies they will run their whole life They j

It feels like part of it is a cultural issue. People in the startup space largely seem uninterested in starting companies they will run their whole life They just want the fun of experimentation and a payday And like that's fine whatever, live your life, but it's creating a really crappy feedback loop of monopolization and buy outs

nickpp 3y ago
Any single Nx buyout results in N additional startups being funded. This is how VC culture operates and grows. It’s one of the main ingredients that build Silicon Valley’s success. Other countries are desperate to copy this model.
- fullarr 3y ago
  I'm not arguing that it doesn't work and create a feedback loop I'm arguing it's destructive long-term by creating a Goliath no one can compete with Or several Goliaths in this case Consolidation leads to stagnation
  - nickpp 3y ago
    Goliaths were and will always be around. But as long as there is an unregulated, free market - there will always be startups competing. It’s not easy, but it’s doable through innovation and creativity. The Goliaths are always more conservative, slower and less agile.
    - gmerc 3y ago
      That’s libertarian religious scripture that needs to be backed up by solid facts.
      - seniorivn 3y ago
        the only solid fact that you need is that tech giants of the past are not tech giants today, and the same way MS missed mobile market, Nokia failed with touchscreen smartphones, atnt and its parts failed to innovate, ibm lost and left pc/x86server etc, current giants are likely to loose. The only difference now is that the biggest competition today is from foreign companies that leads to them being able to get support of government and therefore compete not on the basis of merit, but in a political way.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        > the only solid fact that you need is that tech giants of the past are not tech giants today That's far from the only solid fact you need to know, though. You need to know the conditions and circumstances around it all.
        seniorivn 3y ago
        well, there is an assumption, that the circumstances are a political/economical system which is the same one. But there is an argument to be made about deterioration of institutions
        NalNezumi 3y ago
        And it's a huge assumption. To the level of "you can ignore friction" for middle school physics class. You need to look no further back than the robber barons to see "tech" (yes they were tech, not in the modern sense but industrial) and how it required massive political mobilization to get rid off. It wasn't "free market" that did it, in matter of fact it perpetuated the monopolistic behavior. We can cherry pick history all day. The point is that "only required argument is historic" is stupidity, and often requires assumptions, cherry picking and nitpicking
        nickpp 3y ago
        > no further back than the robber barons The fact that you have to dig back to the 19th century speaks volumes. And if you knew your history, you'd know that, for example in the case of Standard Oil competition and free market already broke their monopoly before any government intervention. And there are many other closer examples where free markets brought wealth and prosperity together with competition and innovation while turning away from them only brought poverty and authocracy. My favorite example I actually lived through was the incredible success story of Eastern Europe after getting rid of communism. From cold and hunger to high-rises, iPhones, luxury cars and city breaks. All thanks to a minimally regulated free market.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      In the absence of regulation, goliaths will inevitably become monopolies and startups have no real chance to compete. The best a startup could be is to hope to be bought by the goliath.
      - nickpp 3y ago
        How exactly will startups will have “no real chance to compete”? What is the mechanism that will stop them? Unless prevented by governmental regulation or similar (like patents) startups move faster and are more innovative and creative. They are not the cheapest but competing on price is not a good idea for a startup anyway, and the monopoly cannot be the cheapest possible since that would diminish profits - then what would be the advantage to be a monopoly? A monopolised market is ripe for disruption and VC are dying to fund startups who can claim a chunk of that market. Any startup bought out by a Goliath will fund another 10 in its stead. I know zero cases of unbeatable monopolies in a free market. All monopolies had government support. Do you have any examples?
        JohnFen 3y ago
        > How exactly will startups will have “no real chance to compete”? What is the mechanism that will stop them? The established monopoly company will, either by strong-arming suppliers, service providers, and marketplaces into not doing business with the startup, or by just buying them. At least, that's how it's traditionally been done.
        nickpp 3y ago
        > strong-arming [...] into not doing business with the startup Isn't that illegal already?! I don't see how extra regulation can change anything. Any company is liable to try anti-competitive behavior and that is why it's illegal, monopoly or not. And even if the government fails to stop Goliath from doing illegal stuff, a free market will route around it. See how Microsoft/Intel - monopolies in the 90s got out-innovated and made irrelevant by pure market forces while the anti-trust government action merely delivered a slap on the wrist. Free markets work. Unless we regulate them to discourage startups. Example of highly regulated markets: health care, energy, transport, education, telecoms. The result? It's almost impossible to compete, prices are high and products crappy. > or by just buying them Thus funding 10 new startups in the field since it's now known that the Goliath is exiting newcomers. Gold rush for any VC!
marssaxman 3y ago
Different stages of the corporate life cycle require different skills and attract people with different temperaments; someone who launches a startup is not necessarily going to be great at running it for their whole life, nor feel fulfilled by doing so. I prefer to work for startups whether they yield a "payday" or not - they usually don't - because huge organizations and complex bureaucracies leave me feeling miserable and demotivated.

nickpp 3y ago

Any single Nx buyout results in N additional startups being funded. This is how VC culture operates and grows. It’s one of the main ingredients that build Silicon Valley’s success. Other countries are desperate to copy this model.

fullarr 3y ago
I'm not arguing that it doesn't work and create a feedback loop I'm arguing it's destructive long-term by creating a Goliath no one can compete with Or several Goliaths in this case Consolidation leads to stagnation
- nickpp 3y ago
  Goliaths were and will always be around. But as long as there is an unregulated, free market - there will always be startups competing. It’s not easy, but it’s doable through innovation and creativity. The Goliaths are always more conservative, slower and less agile.
  - gmerc 3y ago
    That’s libertarian religious scripture that needs to be backed up by solid facts.
    - seniorivn 3y ago
      the only solid fact that you need is that tech giants of the past are not tech giants today, and the same way MS missed mobile market, Nokia failed with touchscreen smartphones, atnt and its parts failed to innovate, ibm lost and left pc/x86server etc, current giants are likely to loose. The only difference now is that the biggest competition today is from foreign companies that leads to them being able to get support of government and therefore compete not on the basis of merit, but in a political way.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        > the only solid fact that you need is that tech giants of the past are not tech giants today That's far from the only solid fact you need to know, though. You need to know the conditions and circumstances around it all.
        seniorivn 3y ago
        well, there is an assumption, that the circumstances are a political/economical system which is the same one. But there is an argument to be made about deterioration of institutions
        NalNezumi 3y ago
        And it's a huge assumption. To the level of "you can ignore friction" for middle school physics class. You need to look no further back than the robber barons to see "tech" (yes they were tech, not in the modern sense but industrial) and how it required massive political mobilization to get rid off. It wasn't "free market" that did it, in matter of fact it perpetuated the monopolistic behavior. We can cherry pick history all day. The point is that "only required argument is historic" is stupidity, and often requires assumptions, cherry picking and nitpicking
        nickpp 3y ago
        > no further back than the robber barons The fact that you have to dig back to the 19th century speaks volumes. And if you knew your history, you'd know that, for example in the case of Standard Oil competition and free market already broke their monopoly before any government intervention. And there are many other closer examples where free markets brought wealth and prosperity together with competition and innovation while turning away from them only brought poverty and authocracy. My favorite example I actually lived through was the incredible success story of Eastern Europe after getting rid of communism. From cold and hunger to high-rises, iPhones, luxury cars and city breaks. All thanks to a minimally regulated free market.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    In the absence of regulation, goliaths will inevitably become monopolies and startups have no real chance to compete. The best a startup could be is to hope to be bought by the goliath.
    - nickpp 3y ago
      How exactly will startups will have “no real chance to compete”? What is the mechanism that will stop them? Unless prevented by governmental regulation or similar (like patents) startups move faster and are more innovative and creative. They are not the cheapest but competing on price is not a good idea for a startup anyway, and the monopoly cannot be the cheapest possible since that would diminish profits - then what would be the advantage to be a monopoly? A monopolised market is ripe for disruption and VC are dying to fund startups who can claim a chunk of that market. Any startup bought out by a Goliath will fund another 10 in its stead. I know zero cases of unbeatable monopolies in a free market. All monopolies had government support. Do you have any examples?
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        > How exactly will startups will have “no real chance to compete”? What is the mechanism that will stop them? The established monopoly company will, either by strong-arming suppliers, service providers, and marketplaces into not doing business with the startup, or by just buying them. At least, that's how it's traditionally been done.
        nickpp 3y ago
        > strong-arming [...] into not doing business with the startup Isn't that illegal already?! I don't see how extra regulation can change anything. Any company is liable to try anti-competitive behavior and that is why it's illegal, monopoly or not. And even if the government fails to stop Goliath from doing illegal stuff, a free market will route around it. See how Microsoft/Intel - monopolies in the 90s got out-innovated and made irrelevant by pure market forces while the anti-trust government action merely delivered a slap on the wrist. Free markets work. Unless we regulate them to discourage startups. Example of highly regulated markets: health care, energy, transport, education, telecoms. The result? It's almost impossible to compete, prices are high and products crappy. > or by just buying them Thus funding 10 new startups in the field since it's now known that the Goliath is exiting newcomers. Gold rush for any VC!

marssaxman 3y ago

Different stages of the corporate life cycle require different skills and attract people with different temperaments; someone who launches a startup is not necessarily going to be great at running it for their whole life, nor feel fulfilled by doing so. I prefer to work for startups whether they yield a "payday" or not - they usually don't - because huge organizations and complex bureaucracies leave me feeling miserable and demotivated.