15 ms·
While stories like his are interesting novelties, I feel like they are distracting and counterproductive to the startup scene at large. Instead of focusing on
by jaysonelliot 14y ago
While stories like his are interesting novelties, I feel like they are distracting and counterproductive to the startup scene at large.
Instead of focusing on what Nick D’Aloisio has actually created, perhaps looking at this "algorithmic invention, which takes long-form stories and shortens them for readers using smartphones" and digging into what makes it special, the story is all about the jackpot of millions he's lucked into.
I'd love to know more about the technical details behind Summly, or what Nick went through to create it.
This kind of lottery mentality just gives the general public the impression that there's a gold rush going on, and causes the kind of magical thinking that's similar to teenagers all hoping to become the next rock star or sports legend, or in this case, startup founder, that will make millions, focusing on the money instead of asking themselves what they want to do with their lives.
For every teenage millionaire that hits the startup jackpot, there are thousands of hard-working entrepreneurs that build for the love of building. I'm not saying Nick D'Aloisio isn't doing what he does out of genuine passion - I don't know anything about him, I expect he's very driven and geniune - but I would rather focus on the work than the jackpot.
- dinkumthinkum 14y agoI hear what you're saying but I think what you're describing is not the most notable part of the story, in fact, possibly the least interesting part of it. I don't know what his algorithm is; I have some doubts as to it's efficacy but apparently Yahoo! did not. I'm more interested in how this person got celebrities and billionaires interested in the product early on. Seems odd.
- jaysonelliot 14y agoIt seems like we're seeing evidence that the class system is alive and well in the UK. Listen to his posh accent, and look at the easy way he casually hangs out with Stephen Fry: http://vimeo.com/52014691 http://vimeo.com/52014691 I suspect the story behind this is simply "upper-class child with family connections finds success."
- seivan 14y agoThat's the impression I got from day one. Him or his parents had connections to get someone interested from day one. I am also very curious about this so called "algorithm". For all I know, it could be a very well made genuine admin interface plugged into multiple turks. That is what I would have done.
- tptacek 14y agoSo what we're saying here is that upper-class connections of some sort or another suffice to get companies acquired by Yahoo?
- seivan 14y agoNot at all, but you have to admit, the whole thing is a bit sketchy. Each line is a separate email. http://gizmodo.com/5830076/how-i-made-a-15+year+old-app-developer-cry http://gizmodo.com/5830076/how-i-made-a-15+year+old-app-deve...
- GHFigs 14y ago"To put it bluntly, D'aloisio raped my inbox."
- joe5150 14y ago"Now we've wasted $10,000 as we dont have the article to accompany the efforts. / That puts us in debt and we can't pay that back for ourselves so now I'm going to have to go without food for the next month." What an elevator pitch! If this Yahoo! thing doesn't pan out....
- rdouble 14y agoConsidering his dad is a VP at Morgan Stanley and his mother is a corporate attorney, he is a great actor.
- 14y ago
- Bamafan 14y ago"I'm more interested in how this person got celebrities and billionaires interested in the product early on. Seems odd." Ding ding ding! That's my real issue with stories like this. They don't explain how these young geniuses got capitol to build their ideas or how they were able to market them to people with influence or how they are able to convince influencers like Marissa Meyer to fork over $30 million. Not hating on the kid, but without proper explanation of those three aforementioned things, there's no real story here.
- nilkn 14y agoIt sounds like he came from a very wealthy family which was willing to invest a lot of its own money in extraordinary marketing for what is otherwise a fairly ordinary app (or so it appears). I'd say the Yahoo! acquisition was more about the buzz and marketing this would create and less about the technology. I imagine they could have just had their own engineers make a similar app quite quickly and for considerably less money.
- seivan 14y agoYup, my thoughts exactly.
- AJ007 14y agoThis paragraph summarizes the entire article nicely: Yahoo said in a statement that while the Summly app would be shut down, “we will acquire the technology and you’ll see it come to life throughout Yahoo’s mobile experiences soon.”
- jobu 14y agoShutting it down it the dumbest move ever. This story is all over the news and everyone wants to download it. Many developers pay a great deal to acquire more users, and Yahoo is just throwing this chance away.
- infrec 14y agoIf the app is crap it would make less sense to keep it. Perhaps relaunching the app after an "update" might be a good use of the name and positive press it has.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- OGC 14y agoThey shut down the app, because it probably sucked and would have killed the hype. Imagine the PR fiasco if the headlines were "Yahoo bought worthless app that doesn't even work properly for 30 Mio $".
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- sfall 14y agoMaybe another outlet can take that route, but this is the new york times
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- carlsednaoui 14y agoHere is a bit more info regarding the algo: http://summly.com/technology.html http://summly.com/technology.html They seem to use SRI: http://www.sri.com/about http://www.sri.com/about
- just2n 14y agoOne would expect that all of that wording means they licensed technology from SRI (likely heavily patented). So a curious badger might wonder if SRI is owned partly by his family or their friends. It seems highly unlikely that some kid with an idea for a news app would be able to license at any affordable rate patented technology that is "creating billions of dollars of marketplace value", or afford a work contract for original R&D. That then makes me wonder what Yahoo gets out of the deal if indeed the algorithm behind the application is mostly patented, especially at such an overpriced valuation. Or if SRI did the R&D and what's being left out here is that his family/friends paid tens of millions for the research to build the algorithm, then this barely covers the cost? And if they did the R&D, then one wonders what this kid has really done (did he build the rest himself, or hire engineers?) Personally, this feels like Yahoo buying a story about how it's acquiring "big, successful, talent." It's hard to understand at all what's going on here.
- trhtrsh 14y agoBut the jackpot is the work. His professionally managed "career", designed to make him look like the leader of a project, is the only reason his product became notable.
- alexkus 14y agoIndeed, when it's time to launch my startup I'll be dragging in my 3 year old daughter as co-founder.
- unclebucknasty 14y agoYou took the words right out of my mouth. This lottery mentality trivializes everything and keeps people focused on the jackpot vs. building sustainable or even meaningful businesses. It's this constant holding up of people who got lucky as some sort of cruel carrot for everyone to chase that's really started to irk me. I don't begrudge the young man his success in the slightest, but enough with turning everything into a soulless reality show.
- anigbrowl 14y agoThe problem is that many people labor away in their own fields while making significant contributions, and never get anywhere near this kind of payout. That diminishes people's faith in the idea of a broadly meritocratic private sector.
- madaxe 14y agoBingo. I have a profitable, scalable enterprise. We're worthless because we're profitable - if you make money, your value is a multiplier of profit. Now, if you run a startup that makes no revenue, or even loses huge amounts of money, your value is a multiplier of the profit you could theoretically in a crack dream make.
- flyinRyan 14y agoWell, the thing is that those people making significant contributions probably generated just as much or more wealth. They just had a rent seeker between them and the market that absorbed it.
- cygwin98 14y agoBelieve me, this is not a lottery, at least in this case. No, I don't have any facts just my intuition. I consider this more in lieu of the case how BillG got the DOS contract.
- ozataman 14y agoI have observed in various walks of life that whoever is in "it" for the money ends up being, at best, moderately useful for their organization, moderately effective at growing, moderately effective at learning and ultimately moderately effective at being successful. And that's one of the more optimistic scenarios. As an ironic consequence, they also end up being only moderately successful at getting rich, that is if they even have the mental chops necessary and a healthy dose of luck. This is like Orwell's double-think: You need to care every once in a blue moon about your well being (compensation, benefits, etc.) and then immediately forget about it and do whatever it is that you're doing for the joy of it. I have found people's sustained focus on their own well-being to be one of the best predictors of their (lack of) contribution to wherever they are in life.
- imissmyjuno 14y agoBeing in it for the money is not the same as caring about your well-being. I have no trouble imagining someone who does not care about money but cares greatly about their well being.
- setrofim_ 14y agoI don't think double-think is necessary here. You need to be passionate about what you do; but you then find a way of using that passion to take care of your well-being. It's not about pursuing one at the expense of the other (well, maybe sometimes, but we don't all have to be "struggling artists").
- Retric 14y agoMore people make 1+ million per year working for other people than cross get there from doing a start-up. And a 7 figure income is a long way from 'wealthy' in today's world. Of course that's not to say you can't retire on 2 million and live vary comfortably, but just because you get a windfall at 17 does not mean your 'done'.
- hkmurakami 14y agoI was listening to Marco Arment's old podcasts and he mentioned that the Tumblr CEO (Dave?) tried extremely hard to keep his age a secret for this exact reason. As soon as his age leaked to the press (19 years old) all articles about Tumblr turned into pieces about his age rather than what Tumblr was about. :(
- whatsup 14y agoyou could argue that that was deliberate to build mystery around a mundane product, sounds like Mailbox App's story to me,
- johnchristopher 14y ago> This kind of lottery mentality just gives the general public the impression that there's a gold rush going on, and causes the kind of magical thinking that's similar to teenagers all hoping to become the next rock star or sports legend, or in this case, startup founder, that will make millions, focusing on the money instead of asking themselves what they want to do with their lives. Isn't it related or similar (should I say the same ?) to the notion that "every american is a potential millionaire" when discussing high-income taxes ?