I've known Bobby for 20 years now, and while this makes me biased, this also makes me informed.
Bobby is not entitled or arrogant. He works hard and preserves friendships. He has a strong sense of fairness, and it's my perception it was extremely riled by the actions of Billy.
Bobby's assertions about the software development being more important than the good-old-boy networks and the braggadocio are generally celebrated in this forum, I don't see why there's a minority backlash.
I believe it's clear from what I read that this situation had a non-technical "co-founder" try to screw over technical co-founders, and Bobby is calling him out on it and using it as a teaching moment.
The way I read this article, Bobby does not come off very well in this episode (though he may be a great person in general). He's the one who said Billy would throw them under the bus. And he's the one who drops his tone to calling Billy an asshole.
Billy is way off base thinking his company owns the code. That is clear. And his demeanor... I dunno, maybe he's not the kind of guy I'm gonna grab a beer with. But he seems to genuinely believe what he is selling, which to me just means he is misinformed. But all that takes is standing up for yourself, explaining... maybe rallying the troops. If the troops cannot be rallied... well I dunno. There seems to be an implicit acceptance of this agreement which seems odd to me. The reaction seems to be "Why didn't you tell us about this llc and your plans?" versus "Your llc has absolutely nothing to do with this team or our product. We'll happily switch to another domain. Everyone else aboard?" Yes, he has some power because he has forged the sales and has the relationships. But they mean nothing without the product. Just as the product means nothing without sales.
Anyway, having done a couple of these types of fast startup events, I think they're just rife with these types of situations. Nobody has gotten sleep, people are pushing themselves to the limit, and everyone feels emotional. Just not worth it.
I don't understand this. I read the entire thing and even though it is from the authors point of view, to me he come across poorly relative to the business guy. The only thing I can see the business guy is accused of is that he didn't make it clear enough that he has been working on this idea for 18 months and has an LLC. The author acts as if it is obvious this guy is an asshole but aside from going to the gym and having blond hair and saying "gay shit" (without any clear reference to homosexuality) what did he do that made him an asshole? Even the joke he made that was supposed evidence of his being a bully was in response to the author's joke about remembering to throw the team under the bus.
The author on the other hand comes across as a guy with a chip on his shoulder. Based on this article I would be reluctant to work with him.
I had the same impression. The constant "we built this internet" and "we run the show now" displays so much ignorance and insecurity about our field its not even funny anymore. These people usually can't explain the first thing about how the internet actually work, even if they can build websites every day.
I couldn't help but be reminded of the Dunning-Kruger Effect while reading this article.
I might be off a little on my facts here, but Bobby left high school early to come work at GlobalCenter, before it was bought by Frontier, before it was bought by Global Crossing. He worked on early MPLS and helped grow the Internet very substantially. Bobby helped turn up one of the first 10G Internet links. So, it's easy to cast arrows, but in this case Bobby actually did real work in making the Internet grow back "in the day."
I have no doubt the author is a good developer. He does seem to undervalue all the hustling Billy is doing. Sounds like he has customers lined up. I would kill for a startup founding partner like that
"The only thing I can see the business guy is accused of is that he didn't make it clear enough that he has been working on this idea for 18 months and has an LLC"
Which is more than enough to make Billy a grade-A asshole.
Startup Weekend terms are clear. Hackers show up to build something new, with everybody on an equal footing in whatever results. Billy wanted free code for "his" business, and so he defrauded 8 developers to get it.
I've never been to one and was unaware of this rule. If this is true it should have been the focus of the article and made very clear. It wasn't. It also isn't clear to me that Billy gets free code. If the other guys refuse to sign up why does Billy end up with free code? it isn't stated in the article and doesn't strike me as obvious
"I've never been to one and was unaware of this rule. If this is true it should have been the focus of the article and made very clear. It wasn't."
I only know it because the article covers it, even quoting the Startup Weekend rules. Admittedly, the article is rambling, and the anger and passive-aggressiveness of the author somewhat distracts from the basic facts, but it's definitely covered in the article.
"If the other guys refuse to sign up why does Billy end up with free code? it isn't stated in the article and doesn't strike me as obvious"
That's a valid question. I certainly wouldn't sign over my copyright in these circumstances, and I'm surprised the author would, either. That said, if Billy were to pursue the business and keep using the code, the legal hassle of preventing it is probably not worth the trouble for the developers (unless the business actually becomes something).
I think if I were in the author's shoes, I would simply send off a contract requesting a formal agreement on the 0.4% stake in exchange for a license to use the code (I'd also want my share of the winnings from startup weekend). If Billy doesn't agree, he doesn't have code. He still cheated people out of a fun experience, by being an asshole and taking advantage of the Startup Weekend; effectively stealing these developers' weekend. They signed on for one thing, and found it was something entirely different. But, at least if the "handshake deal" is fulfilled, then nobody is being fiscally cheated.
But, it's better to just steer well clear of assholes like this. I guess it takes time to develop radar for them. I usually spot'em within 30 seconds of talking to them (and, being a nerd my whole life and involved in the tech industry for ~20 years, I've talked a lot of them).
I don't have any issue with Bobby standing up for himself, that wasn't the part of the article I was discussing. The biggest problem for me was the way he kept creating this "us vs. them" mentality of engineers against the world. It seemed over dramatic and again, entitled. I believe you that this isn't the kind of person he is, but is the image I, and other HN readers, got from reading this article.
It kind of is, though. Engineers, especially good ones, will autoexploit themselves given an opportunity, and produce value that they themselves will never recapture.
It's not unreasonable at all to be observant and complain about an exploitation that's gone on for decades, perpetrated by MBAs and good-old-boys.
It's because Bobby is an adult and is still fighting the battle against the jocks that everyone else gave up years ago, and can't deal with people who do not toe the party line on what he considers acceptable language with fortitude or maturity. This colors whatever good points he may have with an aura of something like entitled peevishness.
Bobby is entitled to his own work, and an aura of 'peevishness' is more than appropriate when faced with someone who is trying to dishonestly bully him out of it.
Adults don't get bullied, kids do. Adults don't complain about how they were bullied, it's pathetic to hear an adult say he was "bullied" by another same human being.
Do you think that this sentence: “Haha, yea. I’ll say, ‘all I had to do was find a bunch of fucking nerds to build it.’” has anything to do with Billy's attitude towards engineers?
In this case, the analogous "jock" is exhibiting bad behavior. Another poster talked about how this sort of behavior is not supported at hackathons. Another person said that Bobby was 'tricked.' I don't think you're suggesting it's okay to trick people at hackathons to work for you? Regardless, I think Bobby is imperfect, but I have huge respect for him. He went through an experience that was unpleasant with an unfortunate outcome. This is a good example for people to read and learn about so they can avoid similar situations.
I wouldn't be surprised that Bobby has a pleasant demeanour in real life, but ElComradio's point is also valid. The nerds, when they harbour resentment against the jocks, are playing the same power game as the jocks ... and as such are, ultimately, no better than the jocks themselves (except for the jocks being more successful). As Eric Fromm said: "There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as 'moral indignation,' which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue."
Bobby comes off as a child. Those guys who go the gym! Those entitled CEOs who are useless! And they call stuff gay! And I name things "anarchist"!
Seriously, it is impossible to separate the story from the source here. Nobody should trust this is an accurate conveyance of the tone of what happened.
Bobby is not entitled or arrogant. He works hard and preserves friendships. He has a strong sense of fairness, and it's my perception it was extremely riled by the actions of Billy.
Bobby's assertions about the software development being more important than the good-old-boy networks and the braggadocio are generally celebrated in this forum, I don't see why there's a minority backlash.
I believe it's clear from what I read that this situation had a non-technical "co-founder" try to screw over technical co-founders, and Bobby is calling him out on it and using it as a teaching moment.