5 ms·

I'm not buying this. First, it's funny that "building great products" is considered a mission. No. That's what a company does to make money. Money is the missi

I'm not buying this. First, it's funny that "building great products" is considered a mission. No. That's what a company does to make money. Money is the mission. If you just want to build great stuff, then don't call it a product or don't charge for it. Start a non-profit, build it, then give it away. Not to be pedantic, but it just feels like the last stop of self-worshiping capitalism when it's considered a mission to build stuff for sale. That's kind of the default with capitalism. The question is, what's the real vision or meaning behind the product/company? What goal is it meant to achieve? Beyond that, he's making these statements at a time when we are seeing a glut of the most trivial products/services that are not exactly world-changing. In fact, many have decried the lack of meaning and unwillingness to tackle hard problems in SV. So, it just seems like we're moving the goalposts. SV has become a vision-less, vapid place, that simply seeks the easiest path to making money? No problem. Just redefine the word "meaning" and the word "mission" and voila!

earbitscom 13y ago
It takes money to build things at scale. Our company has an awesome mission to empower artists by providing them with high quality exposure. Nobody is donating millions of dollars for us to do this out of the kindness of their hearts and their charity should go to starving people. That doesn't mean what we do isn't important or meaningful. In the absence of a truly charitable cause, the only way to provide this solution is by bringing in revenue and there is nothing wrong with charging for a service that provides value. Marc is saying that they look for founders doing things they find meaning in because you build something bigger when you do it for a purpose beyond money. That doesn't mean it doesn't take earning money to fulfill the mission.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  I don't mean that there's something wrong with making money. I am not even saying that there's something wrong with making money purely for the sake of making money. I also don't suggest that seeking-profit means that a company has no mission. I am simply saying that making a product, in itself, is not a mission to be held above the aim of any other capitalist endeavor. That is, simply saying "my mission is to build great products" is meaningless. Is that it? Full-stop? Well, if so, then just say "my mission is to make money"; else, what is otherwise the point of building something great and calling it a product? And, what we see coming out of SV has been to a large extent void of any real mission apart from making money. So, contrary to the article, I think that there are plenty of people from investors to founders to employees who are simply chasing a buck. So much so, that from outside SV (and from many quarters within), it has become the understood ethos of the valley. If that's the deal, then OK. But, let's not pretend it's something else.
  - data_app 13y ago
    "So, contrary to the article, I think that there are plenty of people from investors to founders to employees who are simply chasing a buck. So much so, that from outside SV (and from many quarters within), it has become the understood ethos of the valley." Those VCs are not AZ16 + those startups are not the future facebooks or googles of the world.
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      >Those VCs are not AZ16 + those startups are not the future facebooks or googles of the world Perhaps not. But, when the article is quoting Jobs as saying: “I want to make a ding in the universe. I want to make beautiful products that people love.” It makes me wonder how we're defining mission. Making products that people love is what every company strives to do. Doesn't seem like much of a standard to me, and declaring that by so doing you hope to make a dent in the universe doesn't make it any moreso. So, I'd ask Mr. Andreessen, "Is that it? Does the desire to make products that people love qualify for a16z's mission requirement?" Because, if so, then I'm having trouble seeing where that investment philosophy really differs. The other part is with regard to recruiting and the overall SV ethos. It may be true that select people want to work for companies with a mission. And, maybe many do--all things being equal. But, his "insight" that a person would rather work for $120K plus a mission than $120K and no mission is self-evident and doesn't tell us anything. The test of his theory is whether people are willing to work for $60K plus a mission. And the thing is we know that so many people are really just chasing a buck. We see this in what has been coming out of SV; the glut of copycat and uninspired businesses aimed at this or that trivial opportunity and the relative dearth of companies taking on really hard or "mission-worthy" challenges. I am not saying that there are zero companies of the latter ilk. I am saying that this article is making statements about the current reality that just don't ring true. Look no further than the "fail-fast", "iterate quickly", "look for pivots", "find product-market fit" culture that has dominated SV over recent years. Do any of those things sound conducive to building companies that are on a mission? Or do they sound more applicable to companies that are just looking to make a buck any way they can? Maybe Mr. Andreessen is decrying that same culture. But, the article doesn't help by making declarations about the current state that don't appear to be accurate.
argumentum 13y ago
Stradivarius was on a mission to build the most beautiful and melodious violins ever made. He also sold these instruments to make money so he could continue and improve his craft. These things aren't contradictory. Zuck said it well: "we don't build services to make more money, we make more money to build better services." (paraphrased)
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  Nothing in my comment was meant to state that having a mission and making money are mutually exclusive. Please see my other comments elsewhere on this thread. But, there is a difference between the Stradivarius scenario, as you've put it, and the Steve Jobs quote. Stradivarius's mission was to build the most beautiful, melodious violins. He then sold them to live. OTOH, Jobs said he wanted to build beautiful products that "people love". So, his "mission" was building "products" for his audience (not for its own sake). He even described what he was building as "products"--that is, items to be sold at profit. Not melodious violins. But, products. That's key. Building items that people will buy is hardly a mission, beyond that of any capitalist endeavor. As for the Zuckerberg quote, it really sounds great, but I don't buy it for a second. It's also notable that the quote appeared in the S1 statement for FB's IPO filing.
  - argumentum 13y ago
    Your making a distinction that borders on sophistry. Certainly people have to play violins for them to be melodious, and others have to appreciate music and design. So Stradivari was also making "products" that "people" loved and bought. If there's a real difference, it's the various technological and economic revolutions that make it possible to combine the efforts of thousands of individuals to work in concert to make things that millions if not billions can afford and use. The iPhone I'm holding isn't the product of a lone, solitary master craftsman, but hundreds of master craftsmen and engineers who honed their discipline in many different fields. This would not be possible without a organizational structure (corporation) that incentivizes them to work together.
    - 13y ago

earbitscom 13y ago

It takes money to build things at scale. Our company has an awesome mission to empower artists by providing them with high quality exposure. Nobody is donating millions of dollars for us to do this out of the kindness of their hearts and their charity should go to starving people. That doesn't mean what we do isn't important or meaningful. In the absence of a truly charitable cause, the only way to provide this solution is by bringing in revenue and there is nothing wrong with charging for a service that provides value. Marc is saying that they look for founders doing things they find meaning in because you build something bigger when you do it for a purpose beyond money. That doesn't mean it doesn't take earning money to fulfill the mission.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
I don't mean that there's something wrong with making money. I am not even saying that there's something wrong with making money purely for the sake of making money. I also don't suggest that seeking-profit means that a company has no mission. I am simply saying that making a product, in itself, is not a mission to be held above the aim of any other capitalist endeavor. That is, simply saying "my mission is to build great products" is meaningless. Is that it? Full-stop? Well, if so, then just say "my mission is to make money"; else, what is otherwise the point of building something great and calling it a product? And, what we see coming out of SV has been to a large extent void of any real mission apart from making money. So, contrary to the article, I think that there are plenty of people from investors to founders to employees who are simply chasing a buck. So much so, that from outside SV (and from many quarters within), it has become the understood ethos of the valley. If that's the deal, then OK. But, let's not pretend it's something else.
- data_app 13y ago
  "So, contrary to the article, I think that there are plenty of people from investors to founders to employees who are simply chasing a buck. So much so, that from outside SV (and from many quarters within), it has become the understood ethos of the valley." Those VCs are not AZ16 + those startups are not the future facebooks or googles of the world.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    >Those VCs are not AZ16 + those startups are not the future facebooks or googles of the world Perhaps not. But, when the article is quoting Jobs as saying: “I want to make a ding in the universe. I want to make beautiful products that people love.” It makes me wonder how we're defining mission. Making products that people love is what every company strives to do. Doesn't seem like much of a standard to me, and declaring that by so doing you hope to make a dent in the universe doesn't make it any moreso. So, I'd ask Mr. Andreessen, "Is that it? Does the desire to make products that people love qualify for a16z's mission requirement?" Because, if so, then I'm having trouble seeing where that investment philosophy really differs. The other part is with regard to recruiting and the overall SV ethos. It may be true that select people want to work for companies with a mission. And, maybe many do--all things being equal. But, his "insight" that a person would rather work for $120K plus a mission than $120K and no mission is self-evident and doesn't tell us anything. The test of his theory is whether people are willing to work for $60K plus a mission. And the thing is we know that so many people are really just chasing a buck. We see this in what has been coming out of SV; the glut of copycat and uninspired businesses aimed at this or that trivial opportunity and the relative dearth of companies taking on really hard or "mission-worthy" challenges. I am not saying that there are zero companies of the latter ilk. I am saying that this article is making statements about the current reality that just don't ring true. Look no further than the "fail-fast", "iterate quickly", "look for pivots", "find product-market fit" culture that has dominated SV over recent years. Do any of those things sound conducive to building companies that are on a mission? Or do they sound more applicable to companies that are just looking to make a buck any way they can? Maybe Mr. Andreessen is decrying that same culture. But, the article doesn't help by making declarations about the current state that don't appear to be accurate.

argumentum 13y ago

Stradivarius was on a mission to build the most beautiful and melodious violins ever made. He also sold these instruments to make money so he could continue and improve his craft. These things aren't contradictory. Zuck said it well: "we don't build services to make more money, we make more money to build better services." (paraphrased)

unclebucknasty 13y ago
Nothing in my comment was meant to state that having a mission and making money are mutually exclusive. Please see my other comments elsewhere on this thread. But, there is a difference between the Stradivarius scenario, as you've put it, and the Steve Jobs quote. Stradivarius's mission was to build the most beautiful, melodious violins. He then sold them to live. OTOH, Jobs said he wanted to build beautiful products that "people love". So, his "mission" was building "products" for his audience (not for its own sake). He even described what he was building as "products"--that is, items to be sold at profit. Not melodious violins. But, products. That's key. Building items that people will buy is hardly a mission, beyond that of any capitalist endeavor. As for the Zuckerberg quote, it really sounds great, but I don't buy it for a second. It's also notable that the quote appeared in the S1 statement for FB's IPO filing.
- argumentum 13y ago
  Your making a distinction that borders on sophistry. Certainly people have to play violins for them to be melodious, and others have to appreciate music and design. So Stradivari was also making "products" that "people" loved and bought. If there's a real difference, it's the various technological and economic revolutions that make it possible to combine the efforts of thousands of individuals to work in concert to make things that millions if not billions can afford and use. The iPhone I'm holding isn't the product of a lone, solitary master craftsman, but hundreds of master craftsmen and engineers who honed their discipline in many different fields. This would not be possible without a organizational structure (corporation) that incentivizes them to work together.
  - 13y ago