3 ms·

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 amoun

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...

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...