4 ms·

porchlight.ca - an ISP. I don't think a 13-year business with under $3M in revenue is a startup, sounds more like a lifestyle business. It's also not something

by pxlpshr 17y ago

porchlight.ca - an ISP. I don't think a 13-year business with under $3M in revenue is a startup, sounds more like a lifestyle business. It's also not something VCs would be interested in. This falls under super-laid back, and not something most people on HN would likely be attracted either. The serial entrepreneurs I admire have done 2-4 businesses in 10 years, all with exits well over $50M.

steve___ 17y ago
I started the business as a hobby in 1995 while I completed high school. In 1999 I met Jim and became much more focused. I didn't have the 'startup' concept until 2005 when I read Paul Graham's essay, "How to Make Wealth". In hindsight we should have exited the company somewhere between 2003 and 2005. re: not something VCs are interested in - we didn't require VC money. I do not think VC money is always necessary in starting a company. If anything I believe it adds a layer of complexity which could hurt founders especially with their first go at it. re: laid back - I guess this is relative. I do know things were much more stressful and frantic in 2001. I also know we are more focused today and complete far more in 10 hours now than we did back then.
- pxlpshr 17y ago
  I think you should call this out somewhere because your about page certainly does not paint the whole story. My assumption above was simply the result of reading what is likely the most important page. A lifestyle business was my first conclusion based on your tone and sparse details. Bad VCs add complexity and it's wrong to stereotype all of them as the same, where there is capital there is greed. Good VCs bring a ton of value outside of just money.
  - steve___ 17y ago
    re: adding the above info to the about page - I agree. I will do this.
Luc 17y ago
The entrepreneurs I admire have built long-lasting businesses that continue to pay out dividends year after year. I don't see why flipping half-baked businesses would be a more noble goal than that. Also, I don't care what VCs are interested in and don't believe even small businesses are 'super-laid back'. Besides, if you admire statistical outliers you are likely to end up with nothing.
- pxlpshr 17y ago
  I agree with you about building a value-focused business. However, in the context of this author's post in which they are "looking for co-founders to build, exit, and repeat"... the serial-enterprenuers I admire have done 3-4 $50M+ businesses in 10 years. Serial entrepreneurs are necessary, they keep MBA students employed. That was just a joke. :)
run4yourlives 17y ago
I don't think flipping businesses is a model to admire. They aren't creating any more value than some guy selling a get rich quick scheme. And given the amount of attention DHH receives for taking the counterpoint to your argument here, I'd disagree that "most people on HN" would not be interested in this.
- iiijjjiii 17y ago
  Generally a business goes through three stages: innovation (create and fine tune the product), growth (increase market share through marketing), and harvest (maintain large customer base). We experienced all three stages with our first company. Each stage is unique. Each requires a different mode of operation. They require different talents, different ways of thinking, and different filters for making decisions. Conventional wisdom says this is the desired course of a business. You start out small, innovate, grow a customer base into a huge corp and then harvest the rewards. After reading Paul Graham's "How to Make Wealth" essay, we had an 'aha moment'. It's not necessary for a business to do all three stages. In fact it's not efficient and usually not desirable. Some people/companies are good at innovation, some are good at growth, and some are good are harvest. Each should focus on their strengths. The model of creating startups and then exiting is about focusing on the innovation stage.
- pxlpshr 17y ago
  you have a really biased view of serial entrepreneurs, or maybe I do since they've been so generous toward us. they are world's apart from get-rich-quick guys. They build real value, quickly, and it's an extremely hard thing to do more than once, specifically in technology where innovation and speed often move in parallel. We're not talking about MLM herbal medicine schemes here. If most HN readers were interested in lifestyle businesses, I question why they vote up so many pg, et. al. articles about the difficulties and intensity of startups. To your point however, my initial comment was presumptuous and Steve cleared it up...

by pxlpshr 17y ago

steve___ 17y ago

I started the business as a hobby in 1995 while I completed high school. In 1999 I met Jim and became much more focused. I didn't have the 'startup' concept until 2005 when I read Paul Graham's essay, "How to Make Wealth". In hindsight we should have exited the company somewhere between 2003 and 2005. re: not something VCs are interested in - we didn't require VC money. I do not think VC money is always necessary in starting a company. If anything I believe it adds a layer of complexity which could hurt founders especially with their first go at it. re: laid back - I guess this is relative. I do know things were much more stressful and frantic in 2001. I also know we are more focused today and complete far more in 10 hours now than we did back then.

pxlpshr 17y ago
I think you should call this out somewhere because your about page certainly does not paint the whole story. My assumption above was simply the result of reading what is likely the most important page. A lifestyle business was my first conclusion based on your tone and sparse details. Bad VCs add complexity and it's wrong to stereotype all of them as the same, where there is capital there is greed. Good VCs bring a ton of value outside of just money.
- steve___ 17y ago
  re: adding the above info to the about page - I agree. I will do this.

Luc 17y ago

The entrepreneurs I admire have built long-lasting businesses that continue to pay out dividends year after year. I don't see why flipping half-baked businesses would be a more noble goal than that. Also, I don't care what VCs are interested in and don't believe even small businesses are 'super-laid back'. Besides, if you admire statistical outliers you are likely to end up with nothing.

pxlpshr 17y ago
I agree with you about building a value-focused business. However, in the context of this author's post in which they are "looking for co-founders to build, exit, and repeat"... the serial-enterprenuers I admire have done 3-4 $50M+ businesses in 10 years. Serial entrepreneurs are necessary, they keep MBA students employed. That was just a joke. :)

run4yourlives 17y ago

I don't think flipping businesses is a model to admire. They aren't creating any more value than some guy selling a get rich quick scheme. And given the amount of attention DHH receives for taking the counterpoint to your argument here, I'd disagree that "most people on HN" would not be interested in this.

iiijjjiii 17y ago
Generally a business goes through three stages: innovation (create and fine tune the product), growth (increase market share through marketing), and harvest (maintain large customer base). We experienced all three stages with our first company. Each stage is unique. Each requires a different mode of operation. They require different talents, different ways of thinking, and different filters for making decisions. Conventional wisdom says this is the desired course of a business. You start out small, innovate, grow a customer base into a huge corp and then harvest the rewards. After reading Paul Graham's "How to Make Wealth" essay, we had an 'aha moment'. It's not necessary for a business to do all three stages. In fact it's not efficient and usually not desirable. Some people/companies are good at innovation, some are good at growth, and some are good are harvest. Each should focus on their strengths. The model of creating startups and then exiting is about focusing on the innovation stage.
pxlpshr 17y ago
you have a really biased view of serial entrepreneurs, or maybe I do since they've been so generous toward us. they are world's apart from get-rich-quick guys. They build real value, quickly, and it's an extremely hard thing to do more than once, specifically in technology where innovation and speed often move in parallel. We're not talking about MLM herbal medicine schemes here. If most HN readers were interested in lifestyle businesses, I question why they vote up so many pg, et. al. articles about the difficulties and intensity of startups. To your point however, my initial comment was presumptuous and Steve cleared it up...