4 ms·

I think it's fair to say that 37 Signals' aspirations are, at best, orthogonally related to profit maximisation. They're there to enjoy building things they li

I think it's fair to say that 37 Signals' aspirations are, at best, orthogonally related to profit maximisation. They're there to enjoy building things they like, their way. No, I'm not some sort of Kool-aid drinking acolyte. But ultimately, I'm trying to do the same thing - to have fun and do what I find fulfilling, at the expense of considerably faster and more lucrative routes to making more money - so I can appreciate their general angle.

JabavuAdams 17y ago
When you're working for yourself, you're still working for your customers. This notion that working on a fulfilling business can meet all of a person's needs is false. Working on something fulfilling, for money is good. Having the option of doing something fulfilling that doesn't need to make money is better. So, back to the OP's point: FU money is better than a happy income (depending on what you have to do to get to the FU stage).
nomoresecrets 17y ago
On the other hand, the Mint guys worked for 3 years, earned $170m, and now they can 'enjoy building things they like, their way', for a long ass time without needing to answer to anybody except people who use their product. I'm not sure what's not to like about that. The real question is about what those 3 years were like. If they kind of enjoyed them, that's just gravy. (Of course, I'm aware of Survivor's Bias here. Not everyone gets bought for $170m.)
- kscaldef 17y ago
  > On the other hand, the Mint guys worked for 3 years, earned $170m No, they didn't. A substantial chunk of that money is undoubtedly going to their investors.
- abalashov 17y ago
  No argument with that. I was just offering a way to look at the "shut up, you've just got sour grapes because you're not making loads of moolah!" line.
zackattack 17y ago
I get that. Really, I do. But they keep saying it over and over again in a public forum. Who are they trying to convince: the reader, or themselves?
- sree_nair 17y ago
  There's Point. If they were So happy doing that, they don't have to keep on saying it.
- ahoyhere 17y ago
  It's a Cult of Personality. Benign, sure, and helpful even, but that's what you have to do to get your message across: repeat it, over and over, from a million slightly different angles. Only nerds -- and people with no persuasive skills (or influence) -- think that saying something "the right way," once, is productive.
  - billswift 17y ago
    It's not benign or helpful when it drives, or excuses, attacks on successful companies.
    - abalashov 17y ago
      That depends on whether you agree with it.
    - ahoyhere 17y ago
      Of course it is. It's helpful for the people who've already bought into 37Signals' philosophy of doing business. For them, it's a reminder -- in-the-group signalling -- like a vaccination. If people nod and go, "Yeah! That's so true!" then they are confirming their group identity and commitment to the philosophy they've adopted. If you're not thinking about these things all the time when you're reading things, you're not getting maximum usefulness out of them. It's not just what people say, or what people read, but WHY.
- abalashov 17y ago

JabavuAdams 17y ago

When you're working for yourself, you're still working for your customers. This notion that working on a fulfilling business can meet all of a person's needs is false. Working on something fulfilling, for money is good. Having the option of doing something fulfilling that doesn't need to make money is better. So, back to the OP's point: FU money is better than a happy income (depending on what you have to do to get to the FU stage).

nomoresecrets 17y ago

On the other hand, the Mint guys worked for 3 years, earned $170m, and now they can 'enjoy building things they like, their way', for a long ass time without needing to answer to anybody except people who use their product. I'm not sure what's not to like about that. The real question is about what those 3 years were like. If they kind of enjoyed them, that's just gravy. (Of course, I'm aware of Survivor's Bias here. Not everyone gets bought for $170m.)

kscaldef 17y ago
> On the other hand, the Mint guys worked for 3 years, earned $170m No, they didn't. A substantial chunk of that money is undoubtedly going to their investors.
abalashov 17y ago
No argument with that. I was just offering a way to look at the "shut up, you've just got sour grapes because you're not making loads of moolah!" line.

zackattack 17y ago

I get that. Really, I do. But they keep saying it over and over again in a public forum. Who are they trying to convince: the reader, or themselves?

sree_nair 17y ago
There's Point. If they were So happy doing that, they don't have to keep on saying it.
ahoyhere 17y ago
It's a Cult of Personality. Benign, sure, and helpful even, but that's what you have to do to get your message across: repeat it, over and over, from a million slightly different angles. Only nerds -- and people with no persuasive skills (or influence) -- think that saying something "the right way," once, is productive.
- billswift 17y ago
  It's not benign or helpful when it drives, or excuses, attacks on successful companies.
  - abalashov 17y ago
    That depends on whether you agree with it.
  - ahoyhere 17y ago
    Of course it is. It's helpful for the people who've already bought into 37Signals' philosophy of doing business. For them, it's a reminder -- in-the-group signalling -- like a vaccination. If people nod and go, "Yeah! That's so true!" then they are confirming their group identity and commitment to the philosophy they've adopted. If you're not thinking about these things all the time when you're reading things, you're not getting maximum usefulness out of them. It's not just what people say, or what people read, but WHY.
abalashov 17y ago