5 ms·

This is presumptuous, uncharitable, and not particularly faithful to what actually happened. By Mike's account, the unanticipated pivot to Google+ had nothing

This is presumptuous, uncharitable, and not particularly faithful to what actually happened. By Mike's account, the unanticipated pivot to Google+ had nothing to do with being "tricked." Yes, selling your company does take the risk that the new parent company will shut down your product, but it also gives you access to resources you would not have had, which can ultimately make the product better than if you had stayed independent (thus benefiting your users). For example, Google Voice has been able to offer far more than GrandCentral's product did. Is it a gamble? Yes, but not the simple "founders vs users" one you make it out to be.

wes-exp 13y ago
Indeed. There is no risk-free approach to being on the user's side in a case like this. Choose from: 1) get acquired and risk a possible shutdown by the acquirer; 2) don't get acquired and risk a possible shutdown by worsening economics, competition, etc. (most fledgling businesses are vulnerable compared to the security of Google)
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  And 1) comes with a payout. So no brainer.
- _delirium 13y ago
  In some cases, that's the choice, especially when the company isn't profitable, or is barely so. In this case, though, it seems #2 wasn't a major risk. Or at least the founder claims in this thread that it wasn't: he describes it as a sustainable, growing company on sound financial footing, which didn't sell out of necessity.
Jormundir 13y ago
This wasn't exactly the point I was making. The "tricked" comment was not that Google tricked him (and really this isn't particularly about Mike), but that it is easy to trick yourself into seeing it as a better outcome for your users than it likely will be, because it is such a good outcome for yourself. The path of prioritizing growth is great for the founders: you get to see how big you can get your business (how many more users you can serve), and you get a big payout up front. The path of prioritizing care of your current customers looks very different: growth will be slower, stakeholders don't get their payout, but you will not be gambling for a huge business with the contributions of your current users as stakes (he said the business was sustainable, so the startup risks are likely disappearing and life-span of the company is growing quickly). Personally, I'm going to go with the prioritizing growth option, as the founder did, but I'm not going be dishonest (I don't see it as intentional or bad character, I think it's part of the reality distortion field of the startup scene) and say I did it thinking of my current users. I don't think it's a founders vs. users struggle, the founders certainly do think about their current users, they just aren't prioritized. The founders certainly aren't trying to dump their current users, so they aren't against their users.

wes-exp 13y ago

Indeed. There is no risk-free approach to being on the user's side in a case like this. Choose from: 1) get acquired and risk a possible shutdown by the acquirer; 2) don't get acquired and risk a possible shutdown by worsening economics, competition, etc. (most fledgling businesses are vulnerable compared to the security of Google)

JoeAltmaier 13y ago
And 1) comes with a payout. So no brainer.
_delirium 13y ago
In some cases, that's the choice, especially when the company isn't profitable, or is barely so. In this case, though, it seems #2 wasn't a major risk. Or at least the founder claims in this thread that it wasn't: he describes it as a sustainable, growing company on sound financial footing, which didn't sell out of necessity.

Jormundir 13y ago

This wasn't exactly the point I was making. The "tricked" comment was not that Google tricked him (and really this isn't particularly about Mike), but that it is easy to trick yourself into seeing it as a better outcome for your users than it likely will be, because it is such a good outcome for yourself. The path of prioritizing growth is great for the founders: you get to see how big you can get your business (how many more users you can serve), and you get a big payout up front. The path of prioritizing care of your current customers looks very different: growth will be slower, stakeholders don't get their payout, but you will not be gambling for a huge business with the contributions of your current users as stakes (he said the business was sustainable, so the startup risks are likely disappearing and life-span of the company is growing quickly). Personally, I'm going to go with the prioritizing growth option, as the founder did, but I'm not going be dishonest (I don't see it as intentional or bad character, I think it's part of the reality distortion field of the startup scene) and say I did it thinking of my current users. I don't think it's a founders vs. users struggle, the founders certainly do think about their current users, they just aren't prioritized. The founders certainly aren't trying to dump their current users, so they aren't against their users.