4 ms·

> Start it as a non-profit or an intentionally unprofitable corporation. > Hire better people. You’ll be able to compete with top startups for talent, because y

> Start it as a non-profit or an intentionally unprofitable corporation. > Hire better people. You’ll be able to compete with top startups for talent, because your startup work environment combined with the mission of making this country a better place will be a powerful call. Not sure the "startup work environment" of macbook pros and free lunch will really help you compete against startups that offer stock options in a profitable company. Selling people on taking a worse deal in order to make the world a "better place" always seems disingenuous to me whether the goals are altruistic (help the American people!) or commercial (re-invent the tablet!) If I put on my employee hat for a second, this is what the deal sounds like: 1. Work on uninteresting or incredibly regulation-encumbered projects that can't or won't be measured on customer satisfaction. Where do complaints about healthcare.gov go? How are you as an employee of the contractor that made it able to respond to those complaints? At least when its a product 1) people can go to a competing product (show failure), or 2) people can use it because they genuinely want to (show success) and not because its the only game in town. 2. No potential massive IPO (per the description here). 3. Very unlikely you'll get the actual cool perks of adding quirky features you guys come up with together from analyzing customers. Its probably going to be a super refined spec, decided by a bunch of politicians, and since you're working at the lowest bid anyways even if you could afford to work on cool genuine ideas you have, you probably can't afford it. 4. Huge potential for the project to fail for political reasons anyways. (or you'll have to work with other gov contractors on a different part of the project) 5. The reality that some component of the company will have to become good at the "gov contracting game".

ethanbond 12y ago
www.palantir.com Seriously, a point-by-point real world counterargument of your comment.
- tolmasky 12y ago
  I'm relatively certain that despite not seeking an IPO, Palantir is not a nonprofit organization (a key part of the proposal in this article). Maybe I missed that memo though, can you point to their page so I can make a tax-deductible donation?
  - ethanbond 12y ago
    Maybe I missed that being nonprofit was a criterion here? But it that's the case, sure you're correct.
    - tolmasky 12y ago
      It was certainly 1) mentioned in the article and 2) a part of my critique (that I specifically quoted). And since Palantir is a "point-by-point" counterargument of my critique, I suppose it should at least be somewhat important. Palantir is a for profit company that works on both commercial and government projects, and is valued at $9 billion. If you believe that that is in the spirit of what this article is proposing, then sure, I suppose this is the perfect counterargument. I think its pretty clear that Palantir is a very different company with very different goals than what is being proposed here. The point of this article is creating a "for the common good" contractor with the aim of lowering bidding prices, and increasing software quality across the board, funded perhaps by donations, and certainly not having profitability as its primary driving force. Palantir is just another company, a very successful one mind you, that yes happens to make good government software.
      - ethanbond 12y ago
        Ah, I read the "start it as an... intentionally unprofitable company" as one that starts in the red but doesn't necessarily have to remain unprofitable forever.
- gkanapathy 12y ago
  They're not public, but I'm pretty sure they're not underbidding anyone. Nor are they bidding on the giant IT projects. Seems more like they're doing specialized work in niches where the government is actively seeking novel solutions (and by the standards of government contracts, these are small projects so they can get away with less specification).
  - ethanbond 12y ago
    The whole Palantir vs DCGS-A thing seems to fall under both the underbidding and large (although not massive) projects. They're definitely fighting an uphill battle for it though.
- rankam 12y ago
  Palantir is the exception, not the rule. Most software built within governments, (I work on the finance side of tech projects for the city of New York) are basic crud apps that have to integrate with very old data systems. Most developers are "consultants" that are treated as code monkeys because managers have absolutely no idea about building software - for example, there was a CIO who didn't know what a stored procedure was and didn't understand why they exist after a developer spent time explaining what one was. There are smart developers working on projects, but they are typically not given the freedom to be creative. EDIT: relevant essay by PG http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html
  - ethanbond 12y ago
    I totally agree that it's the exception, but I think if it were the rule this article never would've been written.
    - rankam 12y ago
      Valid point.
  - ddw 12y ago
    And this is why I stopped working in gov.
llimllib 12y ago
I'm working with a company in this space, so here's my responses: 1. It's very rewarding to feel like you're doing civic duty. I think we have a real shot at reforming the way government percieves what's possible in government contracting. Healthcare.gov is very rewarding to work on, because even though I'm super apolitical, I'd like to see people inside the government see that an order of magnitude cost reduction is possible, and people outside the government see that the government can produce good software. Healthcare.gov anonymous shopper is a go and postgres app that has served >250mil visits. How is it not rewarding to serve that many people in getting their health care? 2. I've had my lottery tickets at other companies, I'm not worried about getting mine in an IPO any more. I never was part of a good exit. 3. Some of this is true, and some is not. Yes, you're not in total control of the product, because you're working with gov agencies. However, there's plenty of latitude to implement good user-focused software, especially when you're small and nimble. 4. Just like there's a huge potential for your IPO lottery ticket to fail. No different. 5. Just like some component of your startup will have to become good at the "VC schmoozing game".

ethanbond 12y ago

www.palantir.com Seriously, a point-by-point real world counterargument of your comment.

tolmasky 12y ago
I'm relatively certain that despite not seeking an IPO, Palantir is not a nonprofit organization (a key part of the proposal in this article). Maybe I missed that memo though, can you point to their page so I can make a tax-deductible donation?
- ethanbond 12y ago
  Maybe I missed that being nonprofit was a criterion here? But it that's the case, sure you're correct.
  - tolmasky 12y ago
    It was certainly 1) mentioned in the article and 2) a part of my critique (that I specifically quoted). And since Palantir is a "point-by-point" counterargument of my critique, I suppose it should at least be somewhat important. Palantir is a for profit company that works on both commercial and government projects, and is valued at $9 billion. If you believe that that is in the spirit of what this article is proposing, then sure, I suppose this is the perfect counterargument. I think its pretty clear that Palantir is a very different company with very different goals than what is being proposed here. The point of this article is creating a "for the common good" contractor with the aim of lowering bidding prices, and increasing software quality across the board, funded perhaps by donations, and certainly not having profitability as its primary driving force. Palantir is just another company, a very successful one mind you, that yes happens to make good government software.
    - ethanbond 12y ago
      Ah, I read the "start it as an... intentionally unprofitable company" as one that starts in the red but doesn't necessarily have to remain unprofitable forever.
gkanapathy 12y ago
They're not public, but I'm pretty sure they're not underbidding anyone. Nor are they bidding on the giant IT projects. Seems more like they're doing specialized work in niches where the government is actively seeking novel solutions (and by the standards of government contracts, these are small projects so they can get away with less specification).
- ethanbond 12y ago
  The whole Palantir vs DCGS-A thing seems to fall under both the underbidding and large (although not massive) projects. They're definitely fighting an uphill battle for it though.
rankam 12y ago
Palantir is the exception, not the rule. Most software built within governments, (I work on the finance side of tech projects for the city of New York) are basic crud apps that have to integrate with very old data systems. Most developers are "consultants" that are treated as code monkeys because managers have absolutely no idea about building software - for example, there was a CIO who didn't know what a stored procedure was and didn't understand why they exist after a developer spent time explaining what one was. There are smart developers working on projects, but they are typically not given the freedom to be creative. EDIT: relevant essay by PG http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html
- ethanbond 12y ago
  I totally agree that it's the exception, but I think if it were the rule this article never would've been written.
  - rankam 12y ago
    Valid point.
- ddw 12y ago
  And this is why I stopped working in gov.

llimllib 12y ago

I'm working with a company in this space, so here's my responses: 1. It's very rewarding to feel like you're doing civic duty. I think we have a real shot at reforming the way government percieves what's possible in government contracting. Healthcare.gov is very rewarding to work on, because even though I'm super apolitical, I'd like to see people inside the government see that an order of magnitude cost reduction is possible, and people outside the government see that the government can produce good software. Healthcare.gov anonymous shopper is a go and postgres app that has served >250mil visits. How is it not rewarding to serve that many people in getting their health care? 2. I've had my lottery tickets at other companies, I'm not worried about getting mine in an IPO any more. I never was part of a good exit. 3. Some of this is true, and some is not. Yes, you're not in total control of the product, because you're working with gov agencies. However, there's plenty of latitude to implement good user-focused software, especially when you're small and nimble. 4. Just like there's a huge potential for your IPO lottery ticket to fail. No different. 5. Just like some component of your startup will have to become good at the "VC schmoozing game".