4 ms·

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

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.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Because that's the comparison here. Between the "few good startups that exist", as you said elsewhere in this thread, and the rest of them that are run by people waiting for the opportunity to stab their grandparents for a title bump.
- yuhong 14y ago
  In the case of Yahoo, they already know there is a problem and they are trying to fix it, but that is the exception of coruse.
- tptacek 14y ago
  No part of the scene is different in the era of acquihires than it was before acquihires, except that startups with strong teams and losing product concepts (ie, most startups with strong teams) have a safety net. I am mystified at the idea that anyone could see group hire/retention packages as a bad thing; to my eyes, anyone arguing that must also be arguing that it would be better for startup teams to be incurring more personal risks. The parties most harmed by acquihires would appear to be financiers. There seems to be a meme that financiers enable acquihires so they can jazz-hands portfolio company failures by pointing to acquisitions, but funds either make money or they don't, and a fund whose portfolio companies hit the eject button instead of doubling down and taking a shot at returning high multiples is a fund that isn't going to succeed. I wonder (only wonder; not certain!) if demonizing acquihires is literally doing venture capitalists a memetic favor.

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.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Because that's the comparison here. Between the "few good startups that exist", as you said elsewhere in this thread, and the rest of them that are run by people waiting for the opportunity to stab their grandparents for a title bump.
yuhong 14y ago
In the case of Yahoo, they already know there is a problem and they are trying to fix it, but that is the exception of coruse.
tptacek 14y ago
No part of the scene is different in the era of acquihires than it was before acquihires, except that startups with strong teams and losing product concepts (ie, most startups with strong teams) have a safety net. I am mystified at the idea that anyone could see group hire/retention packages as a bad thing; to my eyes, anyone arguing that must also be arguing that it would be better for startup teams to be incurring more personal risks. The parties most harmed by acquihires would appear to be financiers. There seems to be a meme that financiers enable acquihires so they can jazz-hands portfolio company failures by pointing to acquisitions, but funds either make money or they don't, and a fund whose portfolio companies hit the eject button instead of doubling down and taking a shot at returning high multiples is a fund that isn't going to succeed. I wonder (only wonder; not certain!) if demonizing acquihires is literally doing venture capitalists a memetic favor.