4 ms·

I think the problem is that most of these VC-funded startups are seen as loaded to the hilt on one kind of risk (red-ocean grow-fast-or-die gambits) so they avo

I think the problem is that most of these VC-funded startups are seen as loaded to the hilt on one kind of risk (red-ocean grow-fast-or-die gambits) so they avoid all other kinds of innovation, which is why they are such uninspiring places if one looks at the actual work and culture. I know someone who's trying to run open allocation and his investors said "no", because they didn't want the added risk. VCs are swinging for the fences more than ever, but that means they're loading up on one kind of risk (rapid execution risk) and have no space for any others. At any rate, I think "world domination" is a pretty pathetic goal. Where are the companies that want to focus on excelling rather than simply "dominating" some market?

RKoutnik 14y ago
So the issue is less risk-adversity and more focus on a certain "ideal" risk. Interesting. As to "world domination," it's more a joking term for startups that are creating a new product that intends to replace what the market currently has [0]. Imagine a product designed to replace college as we know it. Incredibly risky? Absolutely. Crazy payoff (in cash and actual change)? Just as absolutely. I just don't see these kinds of ideas anymore. Maybe we all forgot to remove our schlep blinders, maybe the community has been focusing elsewhere, maybe they exist and have been avoiding premature hype. Probably a mix of all three. [0] Think Google/Heroku, not more mobile apps/anything social media
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  I think that acq-hires ruined the ecosystem. The whole concept is parasitic. Acq-hires exist because failed companies (that the market should be clearing out) have had severe trust breakdowns and are incapable of discovering talent within, which renders them unable to do important projects (because they don't know how to find the people to staff them) so they have to buy validated talent at a panic price. If a company is trust-sparse (that is, most people have the "bozo bit" on) then I'd rather let the market kill it than keep moving around deck chairs, leaving investors to think there's still something there. That applies both to startups and acquiring companies. Let these trust-sparse, uninspiring husks die already. With acq-hires in the mix, the game is no longer about profits (so 20th-century) or building a business. It's about getting attention-- TechCrunch coverage, user count (which is meaningless), notoriety, and headcount (because valuations are multipliers on number of people)-- rather than building technology. So it's no surprise that the big winners are class-A marketers making quixotic, red-ocean plays.
  - RKoutnik 14y ago
    As usual, those who are in it for the cash ruin it for those of us who just want to build something cool. Thanks for the extended explanation, I feel like I've learned more from this thread than the rest of HN this past week.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      If you want to build something cool, push MIT licensed code to Github, or write a kernel module for FreeBSD. The complaint that businesses are in it for the cash doesn't make sense.
      - RKoutnik 14y ago
        You're under the impression that "something cool" is strongly typed to code. In reality, there's much more that can be done. Building an organization to make something happen is much more difficult than pushing to GitHub and usually requires outside investment.
        tptacek 14y ago
        At the end of the day, we all could have chosen med school and a life working for Partners in Health in Haiti, so this seems like a slippery slope argument.
        ankitml 14y ago
        I want to build something cool/useful and also enjoy the process of building. Your argument makes it sound like do something useful just for the sake of it. You ruined the whole argument buddy
      - michaelochurch 14y ago
        Businesses exist to make money, and cease to exist if they don't. We all get that. On the other hand, I'd rather not work next to a guy who'd stab his grandmother in the heart to get a small promotion because he feels that he has to make VP/Eng by 30.

RKoutnik 14y ago

So the issue is less risk-adversity and more focus on a certain "ideal" risk. Interesting. As to "world domination," it's more a joking term for startups that are creating a new product that intends to replace what the market currently has [0]. Imagine a product designed to replace college as we know it. Incredibly risky? Absolutely. Crazy payoff (in cash and actual change)? Just as absolutely. I just don't see these kinds of ideas anymore. Maybe we all forgot to remove our schlep blinders, maybe the community has been focusing elsewhere, maybe they exist and have been avoiding premature hype. Probably a mix of all three. [0] Think Google/Heroku, not more mobile apps/anything social media

michaelochurch 14y ago
I think that acq-hires ruined the ecosystem. The whole concept is parasitic. Acq-hires exist because failed companies (that the market should be clearing out) have had severe trust breakdowns and are incapable of discovering talent within, which renders them unable to do important projects (because they don't know how to find the people to staff them) so they have to buy validated talent at a panic price. If a company is trust-sparse (that is, most people have the "bozo bit" on) then I'd rather let the market kill it than keep moving around deck chairs, leaving investors to think there's still something there. That applies both to startups and acquiring companies. Let these trust-sparse, uninspiring husks die already. With acq-hires in the mix, the game is no longer about profits (so 20th-century) or building a business. It's about getting attention-- TechCrunch coverage, user count (which is meaningless), notoriety, and headcount (because valuations are multipliers on number of people)-- rather than building technology. So it's no surprise that the big winners are class-A marketers making quixotic, red-ocean plays.
- RKoutnik 14y ago
  As usual, those who are in it for the cash ruin it for those of us who just want to build something cool. Thanks for the extended explanation, I feel like I've learned more from this thread than the rest of HN this past week.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    If you want to build something cool, push MIT licensed code to Github, or write a kernel module for FreeBSD. The complaint that businesses are in it for the cash doesn't make sense.
    - RKoutnik 14y ago
      You're under the impression that "something cool" is strongly typed to code. In reality, there's much more that can be done. Building an organization to make something happen is much more difficult than pushing to GitHub and usually requires outside investment.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        At the end of the day, we all could have chosen med school and a life working for Partners in Health in Haiti, so this seems like a slippery slope argument.
        ankitml 14y ago
        I want to build something cool/useful and also enjoy the process of building. Your argument makes it sound like do something useful just for the sake of it. You ruined the whole argument buddy
    - michaelochurch 14y ago
      Businesses exist to make money, and cease to exist if they don't. We all get that. On the other hand, I'd rather not work next to a guy who'd stab his grandmother in the heart to get a small promotion because he feels that he has to make VP/Eng by 30.