4 ms·

I think it's important to distinguish between different contexts. There's a difference in what can reasonably be expected from a free service and a paid service

I think it's important to distinguish between different contexts. There's a difference in what can reasonably be expected from a free service and a paid service. Some startups that get bought up and get shut down have been free services. However, if you provide a service that people pay actual money for that's shutting down, I think you owe them some warning and options to export their data to the best of your ability. If the service is being shut down completely, you should also ideally work to find them a comparable service. In closing, I don't begrudge people for wanting to exit out of startup for millions. For every startup you read about on TechCrunch where the owners get bought out by Yahoo or Microsoft for X million dollars, you have probably hundreds of entrepreneurs that work 80 hour weeks for months/years trying to survive on savings/minimal income who don't make it and end up failing. They're not assholes for taking a reward and running. The reward should be great because the risk and sacrifice is also excessive.

michaelochurch 13y ago
For every startup you read about on TechCrunch where the owners get bought out by Yahoo or Microsoft for X million dollars, you have probably hundreds of entrepreneurs that work 80 hour weeks for months/years trying to survive on savings/minimal income who don't make it and end up failing. They're not assholes for taking a reward and running. The reward should be great because the risk and sacrifice is also excessive. Different pools. The people who get funded by VC-istan are not risk-takers. They're people with gold-plated resumes and connections before 35, which means they never made mistakes-- because you can't get that far by that age if you make a misstep-- which means they aren't risk-takers. They didn't have to live off of savings, and as far as TechCrunch and acquirers are concerned, they don't exist. Yes, those "hundreds of entrepreneurs" deserve a lot of credit. They have cojones, and a lot of them actually fail (not acqui-fail, but actually fail). However, their stories have no bearing on the risk in VC-istan, because they live outside of it. In VC-istan, Real Founders (people with the credibility to raise money without a 5-sigma success already in hand) don't take much risk. They get full salary from the go, and as long as they don't bite the hand, they get EIR sinecures afterward if nothing else works out. "Risk" is just an excuse to give less well-connected employees tiny equity slices because "the business is already de-risked" (when that's not even close to being true).
- beat 13y ago
  Really? I think the "gold-plated resumes" are off taking dull, mainstream management jobs and settling for upper middle class. And connections are ALWAYS made by hard work, if they're of any real value at all. Most rich people are self-made, and if you want to get their support (ie angel investors), they have to really believe you're one of them - that you'll earn your riches, not be born into it. The very mentality it takes to be a good founder, to really go for broke with a startup, is at odds with the gold-plated resume. Gates and Zuckerburg dropped out of Harvard. They didn't get those delicious "Harvard connections", because Harvard simply wasn't good enough for their ambitions and talent.
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    And connections are ALWAYS made by hard work, if they're of any real value at all. Here's your gold coin. May I cross the bridge?

michaelochurch 13y ago

For every startup you read about on TechCrunch where the owners get bought out by Yahoo or Microsoft for X million dollars, you have probably hundreds of entrepreneurs that work 80 hour weeks for months/years trying to survive on savings/minimal income who don't make it and end up failing. They're not assholes for taking a reward and running. The reward should be great because the risk and sacrifice is also excessive. Different pools. The people who get funded by VC-istan are not risk-takers. They're people with gold-plated resumes and connections before 35, which means they never made mistakes-- because you can't get that far by that age if you make a misstep-- which means they aren't risk-takers. They didn't have to live off of savings, and as far as TechCrunch and acquirers are concerned, they don't exist. Yes, those "hundreds of entrepreneurs" deserve a lot of credit. They have cojones, and a lot of them actually fail (not acqui-fail, but actually fail). However, their stories have no bearing on the risk in VC-istan, because they live outside of it. In VC-istan, Real Founders (people with the credibility to raise money without a 5-sigma success already in hand) don't take much risk. They get full salary from the go, and as long as they don't bite the hand, they get EIR sinecures afterward if nothing else works out. "Risk" is just an excuse to give less well-connected employees tiny equity slices because "the business is already de-risked" (when that's not even close to being true).

beat 13y ago
Really? I think the "gold-plated resumes" are off taking dull, mainstream management jobs and settling for upper middle class. And connections are ALWAYS made by hard work, if they're of any real value at all. Most rich people are self-made, and if you want to get their support (ie angel investors), they have to really believe you're one of them - that you'll earn your riches, not be born into it. The very mentality it takes to be a good founder, to really go for broke with a startup, is at odds with the gold-plated resume. Gates and Zuckerburg dropped out of Harvard. They didn't get those delicious "Harvard connections", because Harvard simply wasn't good enough for their ambitions and talent.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  And connections are ALWAYS made by hard work, if they're of any real value at all. Here's your gold coin. May I cross the bridge?