7 ms·

WSJ Ignores 5 other Square co-founders

79 points by philip1209 14y ago

s_henry_paulson 14y ago
Terrible title. Bitter submission.
ceejayoz 14y ago
> This contains a major oversight – as reported by the Wall Street Journal, Visa is an investor in Square. It is not motivated to back the competition. Sure it is. Microsoft invested in Apple while still competing with them.
- gsibble 14y ago
  That was because they didn't want to be broken up as a monopoly. VISA has no such worries.
  - pgeorgi 14y ago
    The investment might have the purpose of getting an inside view into Square, and being able to adapt more easily should it take off. With that reason, it makes sense for Visa to hedge their bets and invest in all parties of that market. With that they're in, no matter who wins.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      Also gives them a discount if they want to acquire, or a payoff if a competitor wants to acquire.
  - dasil003 14y ago
    > VISA has no such worries. Would that they did. sigh
    - chimeracoder 14y ago
      How is Visa a monopoly?
  - zissou 14y ago
    But it's not illegal to have a monopoly. It's illegal to monopolize.
gsibble 14y ago
Let's get this straight: Square/Dorsey have an amazing PR machine. We hear about him like some kind of startup God due to it, not necessarily because he is so incredible. To be clear, he's never had an exit and I don't see one for Twitter or Square anytime soon. There's hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars of VC cash sitting in those investments without getting a return. Meanwhile, Square announced in April it was trying to raise $250m at a $4B valuation (Source: http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/25/square-now-processing-5b-in-payments-per-year-volume-up-25-percent-since-march/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/25/square-now-processing-5b-in...). They just finished that raise with $200m at a $3.25B valuation. That's a huge miss for such a big company. They're also burning cash at an enormous rate (see http://i.imgur.com/b1Sm9.png http://i.imgur.com/b1Sm9.png - leaked slide). So just remember that he may be an amazing person, but the PR engine surrounding him so distorts everything that we hear that at least for me, I've stopped paying attention entirely. PS: Don't even get me started on how much the press entirely screwed up the Starbucks partnership reporting. It's a tiny marketing ploy is all. PPS: This is mostly just my opinion obviously. I prefer businesses to focus on creating a viable, long-term business instead of a clever marketing machine with an unsustainable revenue model.
- colmvp 14y ago
  Good points but as an aside, can we really trust a .png as a 'leaked slide?' I could easily Photoshop a pretty graph with a watermark and call it evidence of a company's burn rate.
- mturmon 14y ago
  Attributing credit for the Square hardware is tough. The WSJ article says Dorsey "engineered" the card reader. The blog post says no, it was Dorsey's friend, Jim McKelvey, who engineered the card reader. However, the blog post does not say that McKelvey, in turn, seems to have outsourced the engineering to Robert Morley, a hardware designer and EE professor in St. Louis (http://venturebeat.com/2009/12/15/professor-claims-square-took-his-credit-card-reading-technology/ http://venturebeat.com/2009/12/15/professor-claims-square-to...). This last connection seems plausible to me. I went to school with McKelvey and knew him slightly. Morley was a very well-known EE professor at our university, and a hardware hacker who founded a successful company called Micro-Term that made terminals, and later worked on hearing aid hardware which I'm not sure ever came to market. Exactly the kind of person a former CS major and glassblower like McKelvey might ask to do the design. The most recent summary I could find of the "who engineered the Square hardware" question is: http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/02/jack-dorseys-square-embroiled-in-nasty-litigation-over-card-reader-patent/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/02/jack-dorseys-square-embroil...
gsibble 14y ago
After skimming the WSJ article, I have come to a conclusion. Dorsey is trying to be so hard to be Steve Jobs, except he forgot he has to make a profit.
gallerytungsten 14y ago
Media articles often get details wrong. While this can happen due to actual malice, more often the causes are sloppy reporting, rush to complete work on deadline, multiple edits by editors other than the original author, and similar reasons having to do with the journalistic process. While these causes don't excuse errors, they do explain the often incomplete picture media articles deliver.
angryasian 14y ago
What Dorsey isn't the golden boy that the valley and press make him out to be. blasphemy . Agree, VC's are just looking for a huge exit, with the payments platform and having someone be their Steve Jobs reincarnate will help.
MikeKusold 14y ago
This blog imitates Svbtle's style way too closely. When visiting it, I believed he was part of the blog network. Imitation is flattery, but IMO this is a little too much flattery.
- xorbyte 14y ago
  But possibly Svbtle isn't that original? https://github.com/gravityonmars/wp-svbtle https://github.com/gravityonmars/wp-svbtle (scroll to FAQ)
  - Axsuul 14y ago
    Looks like this is probably being used: https://github.com/NateW/obtvse https://github.com/NateW/obtvse
ilamont 14y ago
Former journalist here. The news media tends to avoid complicated stories. Sometimes it's because the reporters and editors don't understand the story, but oftentimes it's because of A) space limitations or B) complicated backstories will confuse readers/audiences. Television news has an especially difficult time overcoming these factors. But this is the WSJ. Complicated stories and cofounders/partners hitting rough patches (or being pushed aside) are the norm. In this instance, there's not enough data to determine what went wrong. But I find it hard to believe an experienced WSJ reporter would gloss over/leave out such important details.
- AJ007 14y ago
  Its worth pointing out that there is a vast difference between the following: -Communicating something in a way that makes it easy to understand. -Making an attribution error. -Making numerous errors and omitting crucial, relevant, details. I'm not sure about the WSJ, but many news organizations have moved toward "page view journalism" and the quality shows. I have a subscription to the WSJ but I'm not sure how much longer I will keep it.
yalogin 14y ago
I really think its going to be tough for Square once NFC really kicks in. Of course this won't happen until the iPhone includes it by default but it looks like they are getting there through passport. We will have to see what happens to Square at that point. They would be wise to cash out in the next year.
tlb 14y ago
Co-founders often agree that one guy should be the front man and get thrown under the PR bus, so the rest can focus on getting stuff done. Doing an interview with a good photo pretty much kills a day. Multiply by an article a month, add fan mail and invitations to speak, and many sane people would prefer to stay in the background.
enduser 14y ago
This phenomenon is referred to as the Matthew Effect. From Wikipedia: In the sociology of science, "Matthew effect" was a term coined by Robert K. Merton to describe how, among other things, eminent scientists will often get more credit than a comparatively unknown researcher, even if their work is similar; it also means that credit will usually be given to researchers who are already famous. For example, a prize will almost always be awarded to the most senior researcher involved in a project, even if all the work was done by a graduate student. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect_(sociology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect_(sociology)
- confluence 14y ago
  That is a derivative of the "fundamental attribution error" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error) and essentially the entire point of the Republican party (just world fallacy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis) - protecting the lucky/well known/founding/accrued notoriety people.
adastra 14y ago
I just don't understand why, as a CEO, it would ever be in your interest or the company's interest to appear in an article to be taking 100% of the credit. Wouldn't you want to do all you can to make sure your other team members get credit for their contributions? In my experience the answer is absolutely yes. No boost to your personal brand could be worth the possible backlash, resentment, and hit to morale within your team. After all, these are likely people that you'll be working with for years. I just don't get it.

79 points by philip1209 14y ago

Terrible title. Bitter submission.

> This contains a major oversight – as reported by the Wall Street Journal, Visa is an investor in Square. It is not motivated to back the competition. Sure it is. Microsoft invested in Apple while still competing with them.

gsibble 14y ago
That was because they didn't want to be broken up as a monopoly. VISA has no such worries.
- pgeorgi 14y ago
  The investment might have the purpose of getting an inside view into Square, and being able to adapt more easily should it take off. With that reason, it makes sense for Visa to hedge their bets and invest in all parties of that market. With that they're in, no matter who wins.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    Also gives them a discount if they want to acquire, or a payoff if a competitor wants to acquire.
- dasil003 14y ago
  > VISA has no such worries. Would that they did. sigh
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    How is Visa a monopoly?
- zissou 14y ago
  But it's not illegal to have a monopoly. It's illegal to monopolize.

gsibble 14y ago

Let's get this straight: Square/Dorsey have an amazing PR machine. We hear about him like some kind of startup God due to it, not necessarily because he is so incredible. To be clear, he's never had an exit and I don't see one for Twitter or Square anytime soon. There's hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars of VC cash sitting in those investments without getting a return. Meanwhile, Square announced in April it was trying to raise $250m at a $4B valuation (Source: http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/25/square-now-processing-5b-in-payments-per-year-volume-up-25-percent-since-march/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/25/square-now-processing-5b-in...). They just finished that raise with $200m at a $3.25B valuation. That's a huge miss for such a big company. They're also burning cash at an enormous rate (see http://i.imgur.com/b1Sm9.png http://i.imgur.com/b1Sm9.png - leaked slide). So just remember that he may be an amazing person, but the PR engine surrounding him so distorts everything that we hear that at least for me, I've stopped paying attention entirely. PS: Don't even get me started on how much the press entirely screwed up the Starbucks partnership reporting. It's a tiny marketing ploy is all. PPS: This is mostly just my opinion obviously. I prefer businesses to focus on creating a viable, long-term business instead of a clever marketing machine with an unsustainable revenue model.

colmvp 14y ago
Good points but as an aside, can we really trust a .png as a 'leaked slide?' I could easily Photoshop a pretty graph with a watermark and call it evidence of a company's burn rate.
mturmon 14y ago
Attributing credit for the Square hardware is tough. The WSJ article says Dorsey "engineered" the card reader. The blog post says no, it was Dorsey's friend, Jim McKelvey, who engineered the card reader. However, the blog post does not say that McKelvey, in turn, seems to have outsourced the engineering to Robert Morley, a hardware designer and EE professor in St. Louis (http://venturebeat.com/2009/12/15/professor-claims-square-took-his-credit-card-reading-technology/ http://venturebeat.com/2009/12/15/professor-claims-square-to...). This last connection seems plausible to me. I went to school with McKelvey and knew him slightly. Morley was a very well-known EE professor at our university, and a hardware hacker who founded a successful company called Micro-Term that made terminals, and later worked on hearing aid hardware which I'm not sure ever came to market. Exactly the kind of person a former CS major and glassblower like McKelvey might ask to do the design. The most recent summary I could find of the "who engineered the Square hardware" question is: http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/02/jack-dorseys-square-embroiled-in-nasty-litigation-over-card-reader-patent/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/02/jack-dorseys-square-embroil...

gsibble 14y ago

After skimming the WSJ article, I have come to a conclusion. Dorsey is trying to be so hard to be Steve Jobs, except he forgot he has to make a profit.

gallerytungsten 14y ago

Media articles often get details wrong. While this can happen due to actual malice, more often the causes are sloppy reporting, rush to complete work on deadline, multiple edits by editors other than the original author, and similar reasons having to do with the journalistic process. While these causes don't excuse errors, they do explain the often incomplete picture media articles deliver.

angryasian 14y ago

What Dorsey isn't the golden boy that the valley and press make him out to be. blasphemy . Agree, VC's are just looking for a huge exit, with the payments platform and having someone be their Steve Jobs reincarnate will help.

MikeKusold 14y ago

This blog imitates Svbtle's style way too closely. When visiting it, I believed he was part of the blog network. Imitation is flattery, but IMO this is a little too much flattery.

xorbyte 14y ago
But possibly Svbtle isn't that original? https://github.com/gravityonmars/wp-svbtle https://github.com/gravityonmars/wp-svbtle (scroll to FAQ)
- Axsuul 14y ago
  Looks like this is probably being used: https://github.com/NateW/obtvse https://github.com/NateW/obtvse

ilamont 14y ago

Former journalist here. The news media tends to avoid complicated stories. Sometimes it's because the reporters and editors don't understand the story, but oftentimes it's because of A) space limitations or B) complicated backstories will confuse readers/audiences. Television news has an especially difficult time overcoming these factors. But this is the WSJ. Complicated stories and cofounders/partners hitting rough patches (or being pushed aside) are the norm. In this instance, there's not enough data to determine what went wrong. But I find it hard to believe an experienced WSJ reporter would gloss over/leave out such important details.

AJ007 14y ago
Its worth pointing out that there is a vast difference between the following: -Communicating something in a way that makes it easy to understand. -Making an attribution error. -Making numerous errors and omitting crucial, relevant, details. I'm not sure about the WSJ, but many news organizations have moved toward "page view journalism" and the quality shows. I have a subscription to the WSJ but I'm not sure how much longer I will keep it.

yalogin 14y ago

I really think its going to be tough for Square once NFC really kicks in. Of course this won't happen until the iPhone includes it by default but it looks like they are getting there through passport. We will have to see what happens to Square at that point. They would be wise to cash out in the next year.

tlb 14y ago

Co-founders often agree that one guy should be the front man and get thrown under the PR bus, so the rest can focus on getting stuff done. Doing an interview with a good photo pretty much kills a day. Multiply by an article a month, add fan mail and invitations to speak, and many sane people would prefer to stay in the background.

enduser 14y ago

This phenomenon is referred to as the Matthew Effect. From Wikipedia: In the sociology of science, "Matthew effect" was a term coined by Robert K. Merton to describe how, among other things, eminent scientists will often get more credit than a comparatively unknown researcher, even if their work is similar; it also means that credit will usually be given to researchers who are already famous. For example, a prize will almost always be awarded to the most senior researcher involved in a project, even if all the work was done by a graduate student. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect_(sociology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect_(sociology)

confluence 14y ago
That is a derivative of the "fundamental attribution error" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error) and essentially the entire point of the Republican party (just world fallacy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis) - protecting the lucky/well known/founding/accrued notoriety people.

adastra 14y ago

I just don't understand why, as a CEO, it would ever be in your interest or the company's interest to appear in an article to be taking 100% of the credit. Wouldn't you want to do all you can to make sure your other team members get credit for their contributions? In my experience the answer is absolutely yes. No boost to your personal brand could be worth the possible backlash, resentment, and hit to morale within your team. After all, these are likely people that you'll be working with for years. I just don't get it.