3 ms·
Semantically you could make the opposite argument however given the perspective/context. Abandon can mean relinquishing of control. It would depend on your emp
by tokenizer 13y ago
Semantically you could make the opposite argument however given the perspective/context.
Abandon can mean relinquishing of control. It would depend on your employees/clients, but given a large enough sample size, I'm sure one party might feel cheated when power changes hands.
That said, ownership gives you that power. The power to relinquish it. It seems perfectly ethical/moral to me.
- gohrt 13y agoPeople who use the term "selling out" don't believe in the term-sheet definition of ownership. Those people use words like "commmunity", "stakeholder", and "contributor", and attach important meaning to them. The world is not a perfectly efficient free market of isolated transactions.
- comrade_ogilvy 13y agoThat's nice, but the problem is that "selling out" has strong pejorative connotations, while being completely vague. Does Bill Gates have a positive moral duty to all those "stakeholders" employed at MS, until the day he is carted onto his deathbed? Obviously not. What would that duty actually mean in concrete terms? I have no idea. In fact, at some point, trying to hold on and control the company is in the disinterest of stakeholders, as Gates' personal interest and abilities wane. TFA is pretty vague too. I do not sell anything particularly wrong with selling a company at 10% of what you could have gotten several years later. A "measly" 2-3 million dollars in a bank account buys you a lot of freedom. Diminishing marginal returns means that another 10 or 20 or even 30 million buys you less happiness than you might think.