4 ms·

> All those smart and talented heads, and all those benjamins, didn’t progress the economic base in a way we’re going to care about tomorrow. He's talking of

by tferris 14y ago

> All those smart and talented heads, and all those benjamins, didn’t progress the economic base in a way we’re going to care about tomorrow. He's talking of Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, etc. and doesn't have the courage to name then. Is this envy? That DHH's products haven't got this far? Or just naive? Because he should know the typical deal terms of a Pinterest and that valuations and raising are blown up for the sake of getting PR and the real milestone payments are much smaller? And that FB IPO can still fail in the long run? Whatever. As much I appreciate DHH and his past work his posts have always the same bitter taste: 37signals is the benchmark and the rest is wrong. EDIT: Hey downvoters, downvoting != disagreeing, just reply if you disagree

jiggy2011 14y ago
He is considered a demi-god to a whole generation of programmers and drives a custom pagani zonda, I doubt he is that envious.
mhartl 14y ago
The benchmark is profits. "Instapintora" might work out well for its founders, but DHH argues that grabbing a ton of users and hoping for the best isn't a good general strategy for building a business. I'd amend that slightly by saying that companies with a huge number of users are valuable, either as eventual cash cows or as strategic acquisitions, but at best following that route is a risky strategy. Sure, you might win the startup lottery, but you probably won't. Actually charging customers with the goal of becoming profitable in the shorter term is a likelier route to success. Even if you don't end up with a cash cow, you still have a good chance at a cash goat—which is still worth milking.
- tferris 14y ago
  > ... grabbing a ton of users and hoping for the best isn't a good general strategy for building a business. Everyone has their own way and why do people judge about others? Some grab a ton of users and hoping for the best and others write online tutorials for aged technologies. Let people just do what they like and appreciate if they are successful (grabbing a ton of users is as hard as it is to write good online tutorials).
  - mhartl 14y ago
    You're criticizing my paraphrase of DHH, not my actual point. That point was "companies with a huge number of users are valuable, either as eventual cash cows or as strategic acquisitions, but at best following that route is a risky strategy." So you can see that I'm not judging at all: I have no problem with the high valuations of Instagram, Pinterest, etc. Growth companies with millions of users are hugely valuable even if they aren't currently making any money. (This is a point on which DHH and I respectfully disagree.) If you want to follow a high-variance strategy, there's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is expecting that your new startup has a reasonable chance of being the next Instapintora. If you want to build a sustainable business, lower-variance strategies (which typically aim to become profitable quickly) are a better bet. I dealt with these issues explicitly in a talk I gave at LA RubyConf in 2011, which you can find here: http://youtu.be/j0jT98ZXh5M http://youtu.be/j0jT98ZXh5M P.S. My tutorial for an "aged" technology is only step 1 in a four-step plan for world domination; steps 2-4 are much higher-variance. Stayed tuned.
damoncali 14y ago
He did say "Instapintora". That's not exactly subtle.

by tferris 14y ago

jiggy2011 14y ago

He is considered a demi-god to a whole generation of programmers and drives a custom pagani zonda, I doubt he is that envious.

mhartl 14y ago

The benchmark is profits. "Instapintora" might work out well for its founders, but DHH argues that grabbing a ton of users and hoping for the best isn't a good general strategy for building a business. I'd amend that slightly by saying that companies with a huge number of users are valuable, either as eventual cash cows or as strategic acquisitions, but at best following that route is a risky strategy. Sure, you might win the startup lottery, but you probably won't. Actually charging customers with the goal of becoming profitable in the shorter term is a likelier route to success. Even if you don't end up with a cash cow, you still have a good chance at a cash goat—which is still worth milking.

tferris 14y ago
> ... grabbing a ton of users and hoping for the best isn't a good general strategy for building a business. Everyone has their own way and why do people judge about others? Some grab a ton of users and hoping for the best and others write online tutorials for aged technologies. Let people just do what they like and appreciate if they are successful (grabbing a ton of users is as hard as it is to write good online tutorials).
- mhartl 14y ago
  You're criticizing my paraphrase of DHH, not my actual point. That point was "companies with a huge number of users are valuable, either as eventual cash cows or as strategic acquisitions, but at best following that route is a risky strategy." So you can see that I'm not judging at all: I have no problem with the high valuations of Instagram, Pinterest, etc. Growth companies with millions of users are hugely valuable even if they aren't currently making any money. (This is a point on which DHH and I respectfully disagree.) If you want to follow a high-variance strategy, there's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is expecting that your new startup has a reasonable chance of being the next Instapintora. If you want to build a sustainable business, lower-variance strategies (which typically aim to become profitable quickly) are a better bet. I dealt with these issues explicitly in a talk I gave at LA RubyConf in 2011, which you can find here: http://youtu.be/j0jT98ZXh5M http://youtu.be/j0jT98ZXh5M P.S. My tutorial for an "aged" technology is only step 1 in a four-step plan for world domination; steps 2-4 are much higher-variance. Stayed tuned.

damoncali 14y ago

He did say "Instapintora". That's not exactly subtle.