5 ms·

Do people actually say that "A startup's purpose should be to change the world for the better in a meaningful way"? That's ridiculous, and symbolizes what's wr

Do people actually say that "A startup's purpose should be to change the world for the better in a meaningful way"? That's ridiculous, and symbolizes what's wrong with the current startup culture. Fine, go ahead and change the world for the better, but a startup is a business and the primary goal of a business is to turn a profit. If you can combine profit and world-changing, that's great, but don't forget the priorities. If that doesn't fit you, start a charity instead.

samscully 13y ago
If someone has changing the world as their primary goal, and they decide that a startup is the best path toward that goal, I don't really understand why they shouldn't do that? To me a startup is an amoral vehicle for achieving its founder's ends, so if they want to have changing the world as priority number one, and are satisfied with just breaking even, that is up to them (and similarly if turning a profit is top priority). Of course if it doesn't at least break even eventually, a startup is not really a useful tool for achieving anything.
- drrotmos 13y ago
  To you, yes, but to the law and perhaps more importantly – to the relevant tax agency, a business is meant for turning a profit. If the founders aren't interested in turning a profit, a charity will serve them better.
  - sillysaurus 13y ago
    SpaceX's goal is to get to mars, not to turn a profit. And that's just one counterexample of hundreds.
  - samscully 13y ago
    IANAL, but as far as I understand a company director only has a 'duty to promote the success of the company' in the UK [1]. I think it is similar in the US. 'Success of the company' doesn't strictly have to mean making a profit, if the shareholders don't want it to. [1] http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/01/07/companies-do-not-have-a-legal-duty-to-maximise-profit-or-to-avoid-tax/ http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/01/07/companies-do-n...
djKianoosh 13y ago
not ALL businesses have a "primary goal" of turning a profit
- TelmoMenezes 13y ago
  Then they're not businesses, which is fine.
  - ronaldx 13y ago
    If not businesses, then what are they? Removing something from its semantically natural label implies that it's not fine.
    - drrotmos 13y ago
      A non-profit organization. And yes, that's totally fine.
      - 6d0debc071 13y ago
        Might want to turn a profit as a secondary goal and do something else as their primary - wouldn't be an NPO.
        drrotmos 13y ago
        That makes no sense (unless perhaps they've already achieved their primary goal). If your primary goal is to improve the world in some way, you'd put all of your surplus revenue towards that goal (and by that I of course include accumulating capital in the organization for later use). There'd be nothing left for profits.
        6d0debc071 13y ago
        If you were interested in the greatest profit you'd put all your surplus revenue towards producing greater profits in the future and just draw a subsistence wage rather than living in a big house or what have you. But people don't, so I assume that goals don't work like that. I might want to make the world a better place while still living in a nice house. Maybe that's not logical, but it seems to be the case that advancing your primary goal a short way with your money may not be as satisfying as advancing your secondary goal a long way with the same money. I suppose a more formal way of expressing that idea would be to say that your goals are weighted as multiples of how interested you are in the results of those goals. If I value a world-changing company twice as much as I value a nice house, then all that needs to happen is that a given sum of money is twice as likely to get me a nice house as it is to get me a really nice company. Which lines up with the idea that when your company is small and you don't have a lot of money it's probably not a good idea to be buying huge houses, but later on a few hundred k here and there probably won't make a lot of difference to the health of the company.
eugenesia 13y ago
This reminds me of the question, "Do we live to eat, or eat to live?" To a business, money is like food. Without food, you can't live. But is eating the primary goal of your life? Similarly, a business (but especially a startup) exists primarily to change the world, to disrupt an industry, or simply to do something in a better way. To do that, it needs to make money. Sometimes due to its pioneering nature, it makes an extraordinary amount of money. But its primary goal isn't to make money. People do startups for a variety of reasons, one of which is maybe to make money. But like Evernote's CEO Phil Libin has said, it's not an easy way to make money: http://thenextweb.com/video/2012/04/27/evernote-ceo-phil-libin-my-advice-to-aspiring-entrepreneurs-dont-do-it-video/ http://thenextweb.com/video/2012/04/27/evernote-ceo-phil-lib... But I agree with the article that startup founders shouldn't be shy about making money. Startups should be realistic - without making money, they can't achieve their goals.
lectrick 13y ago
So basically, you should code malware?

samscully 13y ago

If someone has changing the world as their primary goal, and they decide that a startup is the best path toward that goal, I don't really understand why they shouldn't do that? To me a startup is an amoral vehicle for achieving its founder's ends, so if they want to have changing the world as priority number one, and are satisfied with just breaking even, that is up to them (and similarly if turning a profit is top priority). Of course if it doesn't at least break even eventually, a startup is not really a useful tool for achieving anything.

drrotmos 13y ago
To you, yes, but to the law and perhaps more importantly – to the relevant tax agency, a business is meant for turning a profit. If the founders aren't interested in turning a profit, a charity will serve them better.
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  SpaceX's goal is to get to mars, not to turn a profit. And that's just one counterexample of hundreds.
- samscully 13y ago
  IANAL, but as far as I understand a company director only has a 'duty to promote the success of the company' in the UK [1]. I think it is similar in the US. 'Success of the company' doesn't strictly have to mean making a profit, if the shareholders don't want it to. [1] http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/01/07/companies-do-not-have-a-legal-duty-to-maximise-profit-or-to-avoid-tax/ http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/01/07/companies-do-n...

djKianoosh 13y ago

not ALL businesses have a "primary goal" of turning a profit

TelmoMenezes 13y ago
Then they're not businesses, which is fine.
- ronaldx 13y ago
  If not businesses, then what are they? Removing something from its semantically natural label implies that it's not fine.
  - drrotmos 13y ago
    A non-profit organization. And yes, that's totally fine.
    - 6d0debc071 13y ago
      Might want to turn a profit as a secondary goal and do something else as their primary - wouldn't be an NPO.
      - drrotmos 13y ago
        That makes no sense (unless perhaps they've already achieved their primary goal). If your primary goal is to improve the world in some way, you'd put all of your surplus revenue towards that goal (and by that I of course include accumulating capital in the organization for later use). There'd be nothing left for profits.
        6d0debc071 13y ago
        If you were interested in the greatest profit you'd put all your surplus revenue towards producing greater profits in the future and just draw a subsistence wage rather than living in a big house or what have you. But people don't, so I assume that goals don't work like that. I might want to make the world a better place while still living in a nice house. Maybe that's not logical, but it seems to be the case that advancing your primary goal a short way with your money may not be as satisfying as advancing your secondary goal a long way with the same money. I suppose a more formal way of expressing that idea would be to say that your goals are weighted as multiples of how interested you are in the results of those goals. If I value a world-changing company twice as much as I value a nice house, then all that needs to happen is that a given sum of money is twice as likely to get me a nice house as it is to get me a really nice company. Which lines up with the idea that when your company is small and you don't have a lot of money it's probably not a good idea to be buying huge houses, but later on a few hundred k here and there probably won't make a lot of difference to the health of the company.

eugenesia 13y ago

This reminds me of the question, "Do we live to eat, or eat to live?" To a business, money is like food. Without food, you can't live. But is eating the primary goal of your life? Similarly, a business (but especially a startup) exists primarily to change the world, to disrupt an industry, or simply to do something in a better way. To do that, it needs to make money. Sometimes due to its pioneering nature, it makes an extraordinary amount of money. But its primary goal isn't to make money. People do startups for a variety of reasons, one of which is maybe to make money. But like Evernote's CEO Phil Libin has said, it's not an easy way to make money: http://thenextweb.com/video/2012/04/27/evernote-ceo-phil-libin-my-advice-to-aspiring-entrepreneurs-dont-do-it-video/ http://thenextweb.com/video/2012/04/27/evernote-ceo-phil-lib... But I agree with the article that startup founders shouldn't be shy about making money. Startups should be realistic - without making money, they can't achieve their goals.

lectrick 13y ago

So basically, you should code malware?