4 ms·

Two reasons commonly cited: - The perception that founders with big tech "credentials" stand a better chance of success than those without. The founders of Hum

by tjpnz 2y ago

Two reasons commonly cited: - The perception that founders with big tech "credentials" stand a better chance of success than those without. The founders of Humane were ex-Apple. - The idea that founders will generally be more successful on their second try, even if their first ended up being a complete trash fire - see Adam Neumann's new venture. This one sounds more reasonable on the surface but I've got no data to back it.

vinni2 2y ago
ex-Apple doesn’t really give much credibility either. For a hardware startup yes but for a AI fact-checking startup? unsure.
- beAbU 2y ago
  Shh dont tell the investors.
- sameoldtune 2y ago
  That was their foot in the door to the startup scene. Now they are venerable founders with a proven track record of AI-driven solutions /s
dmitrygr 2y ago
I am not sure that ex-Apple is really worth anything here. Apple is a kingdom. Unless you are Tim or one of his close team, your opinion on product does not matter, you will do what you are told. So, unless you are one of those few people, "ex-Apple" means that you are very good at executing on things you were clearly told to do. I would gladly hire any ex-Apple engineer and be sure to get a great hire! But hiring ex-Apple product people...
beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago
Execs like these fail upwards by chasing funding that they can incinerate in bonfires of "innovation" and "disruption." For whatever reason, the failure of their tenure at past companies (or the failure of their past companies outright) are usually not held against them. But wait, these execs need insane compensation because, conveniently, "they have the special skills needed to be an exec" [see my first sentence]. SV and the tech world has this idea that many execs and founders are something like Steve Jobs. They love to promote that image. Actually, from my experience, they're more like Elizabeth Holmes or your random MBA/MBB alum psychopath failing upwards.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  There's also the clear conflict of interest where Exec at company A is on the Board of Company B who's team of Execs are on the board at company A so it turns out to be really really easy to get them all to vote for more Exec compensation against shareholder interests. Because they aren't shareholders, they're insiders who also own shares.
spywaregorilla 2y ago
> This one sounds more reasonable yeah, for example, purchasing a magazine about surfing

by tjpnz 2y ago

vinni2 2y ago

ex-Apple doesn’t really give much credibility either. For a hardware startup yes but for a AI fact-checking startup? unsure.

beAbU 2y ago
Shh dont tell the investors.
sameoldtune 2y ago
That was their foot in the door to the startup scene. Now they are venerable founders with a proven track record of AI-driven solutions /s

dmitrygr 2y ago

I am not sure that ex-Apple is really worth anything here. Apple is a kingdom. Unless you are Tim or one of his close team, your opinion on product does not matter, you will do what you are told. So, unless you are one of those few people, "ex-Apple" means that you are very good at executing on things you were clearly told to do. I would gladly hire any ex-Apple engineer and be sure to get a great hire! But hiring ex-Apple product people...

beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago

Execs like these fail upwards by chasing funding that they can incinerate in bonfires of "innovation" and "disruption." For whatever reason, the failure of their tenure at past companies (or the failure of their past companies outright) are usually not held against them. But wait, these execs need insane compensation because, conveniently, "they have the special skills needed to be an exec" [see my first sentence]. SV and the tech world has this idea that many execs and founders are something like Steve Jobs. They love to promote that image. Actually, from my experience, they're more like Elizabeth Holmes or your random MBA/MBB alum psychopath failing upwards.

mrguyorama 2y ago
There's also the clear conflict of interest where Exec at company A is on the Board of Company B who's team of Execs are on the board at company A so it turns out to be really really easy to get them all to vote for more Exec compensation against shareholder interests. Because they aren't shareholders, they're insiders who also own shares.

spywaregorilla 2y ago

> This one sounds more reasonable yeah, for example, purchasing a magazine about surfing