5 ms·

to make a ton of money, you normally have to create a ton of value. the best way to do that is usually to change the world in some way, however small. most gr

by sama 13y ago

to make a ton of money, you normally have to create a ton of value. the best way to do that is usually to change the world in some way, however small. most great founders want to both do something great and to make a lot of money.

jlteran 13y ago
I like your view on this. Although I would like to say that I'm not in it for the money, the truth is, many of us are in it for the money. It's that additional part of you wanting to do something great, building a product you are extremely passionate about, that far outweighs any want for money, as is in my case. I live by the philosophy that if you work hard on an idea that you're passionate about, and as you say, will create tons of value or change the world in some way, then success will definitely come knocking.
- larrys 13y ago
  "many of us are in it for the money" I would guess that it's more than money though. It's also getting respect, attention, acquaintances, access and a pulpit that money buys. With that you can change the world. Sam has a pulpit (my comment wasn't directed at Sam but I just thought of this) that money can't buy. He was interviewed on CNN and has a ton of influence that he now yields as a result of being a figurehead. My guess is that the amount of money he makes is totally secondary at this stage and he wouldn't trade that away for anything. One last thing. It's what I call the "smoke up the ass" part. (Stick with me.) It's great to be in a position where your day is spent with people who are being nice to you because they want something from you or you are some kind of a gatekeeper for something they want. If you like that type of thing (and quite frankly nothing wrong if you do it's a drug free high) that goes way way beyond just having money.
graycat 13y ago
Sam, you're repeatedly making an absolutely huge, gigantic mistake. You are making this mistake every time you say "most", "normally", "usually". Huge. Because the world of ambitious, information technology (IT) start ups is necessarily looking for something exceptional which, necessarily has next to nothing to do with "most", "normally", or "usually". What happened in the past, that is empirical probabilities, even for the successful start ups, is next to irrelevant for what will be powerful, valuable, and new tomorrow. Did I mention "new"? New can very much mean different and not part of most, what is normal, or what is usual. Or, take a famous seccess story, e.g., Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, Google, Facebook, etc., review the environment when they were getting started, and, then, find for each of those successful companies how much they looked like most, normal, or usual. Answer: Not much, and where they were "most", etc., it was essentially irrelevant. Or, the SR-71 was nothing like most, normal, or usual. So, how to evaluate the project? Sure: The evaluation was no doubt quite technical and thorough but also quite accurate. No doubt in this evaluation most, normal, and usual played no role. Sam, looking at most, normal, and usual in the past will tell you next to nothing about what will be successful in the future; still for a wide class of start ups, there are ways to tell. Sam, more simply, clearly you are looking at most, normal, and usual as guidance for what should look for or do for the future, but, especially for the criteria you are considering, this is poor and will throw out a larger fraction of good babies than bath water.

by sama 13y ago

jlteran 13y ago

I like your view on this. Although I would like to say that I'm not in it for the money, the truth is, many of us are in it for the money. It's that additional part of you wanting to do something great, building a product you are extremely passionate about, that far outweighs any want for money, as is in my case. I live by the philosophy that if you work hard on an idea that you're passionate about, and as you say, will create tons of value or change the world in some way, then success will definitely come knocking.

larrys 13y ago
"many of us are in it for the money" I would guess that it's more than money though. It's also getting respect, attention, acquaintances, access and a pulpit that money buys. With that you can change the world. Sam has a pulpit (my comment wasn't directed at Sam but I just thought of this) that money can't buy. He was interviewed on CNN and has a ton of influence that he now yields as a result of being a figurehead. My guess is that the amount of money he makes is totally secondary at this stage and he wouldn't trade that away for anything. One last thing. It's what I call the "smoke up the ass" part. (Stick with me.) It's great to be in a position where your day is spent with people who are being nice to you because they want something from you or you are some kind of a gatekeeper for something they want. If you like that type of thing (and quite frankly nothing wrong if you do it's a drug free high) that goes way way beyond just having money.

graycat 13y ago

Sam, you're repeatedly making an absolutely huge, gigantic mistake. You are making this mistake every time you say "most", "normally", "usually". Huge. Because the world of ambitious, information technology (IT) start ups is necessarily looking for something exceptional which, necessarily has next to nothing to do with "most", "normally", or "usually". What happened in the past, that is empirical probabilities, even for the successful start ups, is next to irrelevant for what will be powerful, valuable, and new tomorrow. Did I mention "new"? New can very much mean different and not part of most, what is normal, or what is usual. Or, take a famous seccess story, e.g., Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, Google, Facebook, etc., review the environment when they were getting started, and, then, find for each of those successful companies how much they looked like most, normal, or usual. Answer: Not much, and where they were "most", etc., it was essentially irrelevant. Or, the SR-71 was nothing like most, normal, or usual. So, how to evaluate the project? Sure: The evaluation was no doubt quite technical and thorough but also quite accurate. No doubt in this evaluation most, normal, and usual played no role. Sam, looking at most, normal, and usual in the past will tell you next to nothing about what will be successful in the future; still for a wide class of start ups, there are ways to tell. Sam, more simply, clearly you are looking at most, normal, and usual as guidance for what should look for or do for the future, but, especially for the criteria you are considering, this is poor and will throw out a larger fraction of good babies than bath water.