7 ms·

The lifestyle business bullshit

46 points by sant0sk1 18y ago

antidaily 18y ago
I don't disagree with DHH but I bet if you totaled the hours spent blogging, redesigning FedEx for fun, giving talks at conferences, fixing Rails bugs, etc. the 37signals crew works about as much as anyone else. I want to know who is calling them a lifestyle business. Did that even happen?
- dhh 18y ago
  As much as what? And what are you willing to bet :)? We certainly don't have a 4-hour work week, but we sure don't keep a 60-hour one either. Yes, there are exceptional weeks here and there were there's a brief spike, but those are just that, exceptions. On average, we all take time to spend lots of it away from a computer. I think having a healthy hobby and social life outside of computers will only make you a better business person, not to mention a more well-rounded human. Your 20'ies and 30'ies are your most capable for physical activity. In my mind, you'd do well to spend a fair amount of that potential. Of course, you're free to do whatever the hell you please. Just don't make excuses like "I have to, that's the only way to be successful". Oh, and stop calling people who do pursue that balance "lifestyle businesses" unless you literally mean that the have both a life, style, and a business ;)
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
webwright 18y ago
Gah, it's honestly the people who RUN lifestyle businesses who make it such a dirty word. It's not, and you should stop being defensive about it. People's dreams vary. Some people want to change the world in a big way and gain satisfaction from herculean effort against incredible odds. Other people aspire to a comfortable living and a life that has lots of room for non-work activities. There's no shame in either.
- dhh 18y ago
  Another bullshit dichotomy. We want to change the world in a big way. We certainly face hard odds (building a multi-million dollar business is very hard regardless of how you go about it). We just want to do all of that and do other things at the same time. So far that has been going pretty well.
  - mixmax 18y ago
    I honestly don't think 37Signals is changing the world in a big way. You're not inventing the transistor, you're making one of many online to-do lists and chats. I'm not saying the products aren't nice, they are. But they aren't gamechanging in any way. You're great at marketing though.
    - hbien 18y ago
      I'm pretty sure Rails was game changing.
      - omouse 18y ago
        Maybe in the way it's encouraged other web frameworks to adopt MVC, but that's not a huge deal. MVC has been around for a long time anyhow.
        marcusbooster 18y ago
        It did bring Ruby into the mainstream.
        derefr 18y ago
        It didn't change the whole world just a little bit (which is what most people mean by "change the world"); it changed one tiny segment of the world—webapp programming—a lot. I think that's even more laudable.
      - mixmax 18y ago
        Lisp was gamechanging, C was gamechanging, maybe fortran was gamechanging. Rails is just a framework, albeit a popular one. Let's see if people still use it in five years, or if they have moved onto the new new thing.
n8tron 18y ago
These guys really, really – I mean REALLY – like to talk about themselves. We get it, you're cool. Now please help port some more gems for Ruby 1.9.
- fairramone 18y ago
  Agreed. 37narcisists.com is more like it!
- mlinsey 18y ago
  Judging by how frequently they make the front page, people on HN really, really like to talk about them as well. Their perspective is intriguing, even if it isn't generalizable.
mauricio 18y ago
I think a lifestyle business isn't necessarily defined by the amount of hours you work but rather how much you earn. If your business earns X and you are content earning X because it supports your 'lifestyle', then you have a lifestyle business. I don't think a lifestyle business is negative nor am implying that 37Signals is a lifestyle business. Just think you have it mixed up is all...
axod 18y ago
From wikipedia: "Lifestyle Businesses are businesses that are set up and run by their founders primarily with the aim of sustaining a particular level of income and no more; Lifestyle Businesses typically have limited scalability and potential for growth because such growth would destroy the very lifestyle for which their owner-managers set them up." And from 37signals blog: "We haven’t found the natural size for 37signals yet, but I can tell you that it’s not a thousand people. It’s highly unlike to be a hundred. Right now it’s 10 and it’s been in that vicinity for quite some time." You can't really complain you get the 'lifestyle business' tag... As far as I see, it's pretty much the definition of one.
- dhh 18y ago
  You are equating growth with head count, which is a common fallacy, but still a fallacy. Our measure of growth and success is profit and growth in profit. For the past many years now, we've had spectacular yearly growth and we've yet managed to avoid destroying the lifestyle we're enjoying. Preferably we wouldn't hire another person for the next 10 years, but still dramatically increase our profits. To me, there's no growth in just adding to the head count without increasing profits. That's just deadweight.
  - axod 18y ago
    Without a head count growth though, you're just supporting a lifestyle. Surely. That's great, and it depends on your priorities. But as far as I see it, that's the definition of a lifestyle business - sacrificing growth of the business (In terms of head count), for 'lifestyle'. With a very small team, that profit seems quite risky to me. (I would also say plentyoffish is a lifestyle business at the moment from what I know about it). From what I've read, there's a very small team, not growing in head count, making a lot of money. >> To me, there's no growth in just adding to the head count without increasing profits. That's just deadweight. I think it's a good thing to employ more people, if it's going to work in the long term. Sacrificing 'lifestyle' now, to build a big company. You can either take the profit, or you can reinvest it in people for the long term, and build something big. >> "Our measure of growth and success is profit and growth in profit." Which is more risky? 1 person earning $10m a year, or 10 people earning $1m each a year within the same company?
strlen 18y ago
"...still have time for taking flying lessons, learning to play the guitar, nurture your garden, go hiking, enjoy cooking, socialize with people outside your tech circle." One doesn't have to run a 37-signals style business ("do less", no external investment, charge customers immediately) to do this. One doesn't even have to limit themselves to a traditional 35-45 hour work week to do so. This is entirely possible while being a "workaholic", if you aren't wasting your time. I'd say that those who do spend all waking hours on technology (and I used to be one of those) generally do so out of preference, anxiety or combination of those two. Note: I am also not implying there's anything with either running a 37-signals style business or spending all waking hours working. Depending on what your goals and preference are, all these are legitimate choices.
smoody 18y ago
It's a lot easier when you have a strong brand (corporate and personal). It's not so easy when you don't. Granted, they had no brand when they started (which was in a different climate than the climate facing startups today), but I think they've forgotten what it's like to be brandless, moneyless, etc. If they want to prove their constant mantra of "anyone can do it!," then they should try this: Start a new company with a new company name, use aliases for their own names, live on ramen noodles for eight months (or many more), and see if they can repeat their success. If they can do it, then I'll be the first to sing their praises. They've created exactly one successful company (a huge achievement to be sure). However, that doesn't qualify them to spread general wisdom about how anyone can do the same. I'm not saying that their ideas for creating products people love are bad or wrong. They're actually quite good (and perhaps even intuitive to anyone who sits down and really thinks about it instead of just wanting to read about it). But one can't extrapolate broad patterns from a single macro datapoint. Of course anyone is free to say whatever they want and I'm not suggesting that they or anyone else should stop expressing their opinions -- opinions are what make the Internet great. :-)
- pwim 18y ago
  Addressed in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=509808 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=509808
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  They've created exactly one successful company (a huge achievement to be sure). However, that doesn't qualify them to spread general wisdom about how anyone can do the same. So... who is qualified? Steve Jobs, maybe. But even Steve can't meet your crazy criterion: He's not dumb enough to have run NeXT and Pixar under an alias. He used his own name. Because he had invested a lot of time in that name and it remains one of his biggest assets. And because it's probably impossible for Steve Jobs to run away from his name. And because, even if he changed his name and got plastic surgery, everyone would know it was a Steve Jobs company. I'm told that working for Steve Jobs is a really unmistakable experience. His style sticks out from a mile away. Business isn't a science. All you get is anecdotes. You have to do what everyone else in Silicon Valley does: look at what Fairchild or Hewlett-Packard or Apple or Google did, and try to generalize. You might accidentally overgeneralize. Try to survive anyway.
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
37signals is crossing the line from confident into arrogant hubris. It's understandable. The incentives in the eyeball/clicks world is to be inflammatory. Doesn't mean we should be paying attention.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

46 points by sant0sk1 18y ago

I don't disagree with DHH but I bet if you totaled the hours spent blogging, redesigning FedEx for fun, giving talks at conferences, fixing Rails bugs, etc. the 37signals crew works about as much as anyone else. I want to know who is calling them a lifestyle business. Did that even happen?

dhh 18y ago
As much as what? And what are you willing to bet :)? We certainly don't have a 4-hour work week, but we sure don't keep a 60-hour one either. Yes, there are exceptional weeks here and there were there's a brief spike, but those are just that, exceptions. On average, we all take time to spend lots of it away from a computer. I think having a healthy hobby and social life outside of computers will only make you a better business person, not to mention a more well-rounded human. Your 20'ies and 30'ies are your most capable for physical activity. In my mind, you'd do well to spend a fair amount of that potential. Of course, you're free to do whatever the hell you please. Just don't make excuses like "I have to, that's the only way to be successful". Oh, and stop calling people who do pursue that balance "lifestyle businesses" unless you literally mean that the have both a life, style, and a business ;)
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]

webwright 18y ago

Gah, it's honestly the people who RUN lifestyle businesses who make it such a dirty word. It's not, and you should stop being defensive about it. People's dreams vary. Some people want to change the world in a big way and gain satisfaction from herculean effort against incredible odds. Other people aspire to a comfortable living and a life that has lots of room for non-work activities. There's no shame in either.

dhh 18y ago
Another bullshit dichotomy. We want to change the world in a big way. We certainly face hard odds (building a multi-million dollar business is very hard regardless of how you go about it). We just want to do all of that and do other things at the same time. So far that has been going pretty well.
- mixmax 18y ago
  I honestly don't think 37Signals is changing the world in a big way. You're not inventing the transistor, you're making one of many online to-do lists and chats. I'm not saying the products aren't nice, they are. But they aren't gamechanging in any way. You're great at marketing though.
  - hbien 18y ago
    I'm pretty sure Rails was game changing.
    - omouse 18y ago
      Maybe in the way it's encouraged other web frameworks to adopt MVC, but that's not a huge deal. MVC has been around for a long time anyhow.
      - marcusbooster 18y ago
        It did bring Ruby into the mainstream.
      - derefr 18y ago
        It didn't change the whole world just a little bit (which is what most people mean by "change the world"); it changed one tiny segment of the world—webapp programming—a lot. I think that's even more laudable.
    - mixmax 18y ago
      Lisp was gamechanging, C was gamechanging, maybe fortran was gamechanging. Rails is just a framework, albeit a popular one. Let's see if people still use it in five years, or if they have moved onto the new new thing.

n8tron 18y ago

These guys really, really – I mean REALLY – like to talk about themselves. We get it, you're cool. Now please help port some more gems for Ruby 1.9.

fairramone 18y ago
Agreed. 37narcisists.com is more like it!
mlinsey 18y ago
Judging by how frequently they make the front page, people on HN really, really like to talk about them as well. Their perspective is intriguing, even if it isn't generalizable.

mauricio 18y ago

I think a lifestyle business isn't necessarily defined by the amount of hours you work but rather how much you earn. If your business earns X and you are content earning X because it supports your 'lifestyle', then you have a lifestyle business. I don't think a lifestyle business is negative nor am implying that 37Signals is a lifestyle business. Just think you have it mixed up is all...

axod 18y ago

From wikipedia: "Lifestyle Businesses are businesses that are set up and run by their founders primarily with the aim of sustaining a particular level of income and no more; Lifestyle Businesses typically have limited scalability and potential for growth because such growth would destroy the very lifestyle for which their owner-managers set them up." And from 37signals blog: "We haven’t found the natural size for 37signals yet, but I can tell you that it’s not a thousand people. It’s highly unlike to be a hundred. Right now it’s 10 and it’s been in that vicinity for quite some time." You can't really complain you get the 'lifestyle business' tag... As far as I see, it's pretty much the definition of one.

dhh 18y ago
You are equating growth with head count, which is a common fallacy, but still a fallacy. Our measure of growth and success is profit and growth in profit. For the past many years now, we've had spectacular yearly growth and we've yet managed to avoid destroying the lifestyle we're enjoying. Preferably we wouldn't hire another person for the next 10 years, but still dramatically increase our profits. To me, there's no growth in just adding to the head count without increasing profits. That's just deadweight.
- axod 18y ago
  Without a head count growth though, you're just supporting a lifestyle. Surely. That's great, and it depends on your priorities. But as far as I see it, that's the definition of a lifestyle business - sacrificing growth of the business (In terms of head count), for 'lifestyle'. With a very small team, that profit seems quite risky to me. (I would also say plentyoffish is a lifestyle business at the moment from what I know about it). From what I've read, there's a very small team, not growing in head count, making a lot of money. >> To me, there's no growth in just adding to the head count without increasing profits. That's just deadweight. I think it's a good thing to employ more people, if it's going to work in the long term. Sacrificing 'lifestyle' now, to build a big company. You can either take the profit, or you can reinvest it in people for the long term, and build something big. >> "Our measure of growth and success is profit and growth in profit." Which is more risky? 1 person earning $10m a year, or 10 people earning $1m each a year within the same company?

strlen 18y ago

"...still have time for taking flying lessons, learning to play the guitar, nurture your garden, go hiking, enjoy cooking, socialize with people outside your tech circle." One doesn't have to run a 37-signals style business ("do less", no external investment, charge customers immediately) to do this. One doesn't even have to limit themselves to a traditional 35-45 hour work week to do so. This is entirely possible while being a "workaholic", if you aren't wasting your time. I'd say that those who do spend all waking hours on technology (and I used to be one of those) generally do so out of preference, anxiety or combination of those two. Note: I am also not implying there's anything with either running a 37-signals style business or spending all waking hours working. Depending on what your goals and preference are, all these are legitimate choices.

smoody 18y ago

It's a lot easier when you have a strong brand (corporate and personal). It's not so easy when you don't. Granted, they had no brand when they started (which was in a different climate than the climate facing startups today), but I think they've forgotten what it's like to be brandless, moneyless, etc. If they want to prove their constant mantra of "anyone can do it!," then they should try this: Start a new company with a new company name, use aliases for their own names, live on ramen noodles for eight months (or many more), and see if they can repeat their success. If they can do it, then I'll be the first to sing their praises. They've created exactly one successful company (a huge achievement to be sure). However, that doesn't qualify them to spread general wisdom about how anyone can do the same. I'm not saying that their ideas for creating products people love are bad or wrong. They're actually quite good (and perhaps even intuitive to anyone who sits down and really thinks about it instead of just wanting to read about it). But one can't extrapolate broad patterns from a single macro datapoint. Of course anyone is free to say whatever they want and I'm not suggesting that they or anyone else should stop expressing their opinions -- opinions are what make the Internet great. :-)

pwim 18y ago
Addressed in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=509808 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=509808
mechanical_fish 18y ago
They've created exactly one successful company (a huge achievement to be sure). However, that doesn't qualify them to spread general wisdom about how anyone can do the same. So... who is qualified? Steve Jobs, maybe. But even Steve can't meet your crazy criterion: He's not dumb enough to have run NeXT and Pixar under an alias. He used his own name. Because he had invested a lot of time in that name and it remains one of his biggest assets. And because it's probably impossible for Steve Jobs to run away from his name. And because, even if he changed his name and got plastic surgery, everyone would know it was a Steve Jobs company. I'm told that working for Steve Jobs is a really unmistakable experience. His style sticks out from a mile away. Business isn't a science. All you get is anecdotes. You have to do what everyone else in Silicon Valley does: look at what Fairchild or Hewlett-Packard or Apple or Google did, and try to generalize. You might accidentally overgeneralize. Try to survive anyway.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

37signals is crossing the line from confident into arrogant hubris. It's understandable. The incentives in the eyeball/clicks world is to be inflammatory. Doesn't mean we should be paying attention.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]