"But it’s worth a read to understand the perspective of a vocal minority in the tech industry."
That statement is a bit off-putting. First of all, this 'minority' is the majority. Most software businesses are indeed small, and are not aiming for venture capital and outsized returns. It would not even be mathematically possible to be otherwise.
Secondly, the 'vocal' people are the people trying to make you start a big business. Almost all blogs and writers cater to the startup crowd, not the mISV crowd. Most people writing country specific tax software or inventory sorting software are not blogging at all.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what he means - but to me it seems like he is deep in the bubble, and can't see out of it. That's why the article he reacted to would have been so disturbing to him.
"Secondly, the 'vocal' people are the people trying to make you start a big business."
As a guy who respects both paths (and has gone down both), I'd say I see more people advocating against a swing-for-the-fences path ("VCs will eat your babies, take control, force you to take insane risks, make you work insane hours, and you'll die penniless 99.9999% of the time!") than advocating against a happy-lifestyle business path. In fact, Alex's post is the first time I've ever read anyone actually saying, "If you're smart, DON'T do a small business that makes you happy! Aim higher."
The lifestyle zealots, to me, seem a lot more vocal/angry. The go-big zealots honestly just seem puzzled... If you're going to quit your job and start something, why wouldn't you attack a huge opportunity? They just don't get that some folks have different motivations than money/fame/world-changing.
The idea that EITHER group tells you what you should do with your life is disgusting to me. For what it's worth, raising venture capital and working VCs made me perfectly happy. My first bootstrapped business actually made me pretty miserable. For the right startup, I'd raise money again in a heartbeat. Whether you raise money or aim big depends entirely on what you care about and how much cash you need to pull it off.
We are more vocal because we are in a tiny minority, constantly trashed (e.g. "lifestyle business"), and most of the people who are "living the life" are too busy running their own businesses to blog. Or they don't see it as a movement, like I do.
Yeah, it's the "constantly trashed" that I never see. "Lifestyle business" isn't an insult-- it's a perfectly valid label for a lot of businesses (those that prioritize lifestyle over growth). Bootstrapped is another good label-- for those that don't necessary avoid growth, but don't (or can't) raise or borrow money.
And other that Alex's post, I can't recall anyone taking the time to write a post trashing lifestyle businesses or bootstrapping or whatever you want to call it (I guess the latter could imply more ambition while the former might imply maximizing reward for as little effort as you can get away with).
Granted, we celebrate "go-big-or-go-home" folks (in the news and on HN)... That's nothing new-- humans have celebrated daring forever. It sells newspapers and generates pageviews.
On the other hand, I feel like I can rattle off a long list of "VCs will eat your baby" bloggers. Yours, 37s, the LessEverything guys, the folks at Jackson Fish Market, etc. I love all of your blogs and all of your products-- but I just don't get the rage (though I think you were perfectly justified in blowing up at Alex, btw).
It's a Blue Honda problem -- or whatever the name was. You buy a new car, suddenly you see them everywhere. A type of selection bias. You probably don't see it because you aren't tuned into it.
Yeah, it's truly bizarre that Alex is at Amy Hoy's throat about this. Amy is utterly dedicated to encouraging more people who don't feel safe starting a business to GO DO IT. That seems like something Alex would be into.
Maybe because he's shooting for the stars right now with BankSimple (which I am SO excited about) he's feeling a little nervous about that strategy. Being pre-launch on something so anticipated and ambitious must be at least a little scary!
I guess I can understand Alex's perspective when I consider he's one the lucky few to be on the 0.0001% side of the equation and raised $2.9 million first round funding. (Must be nice.)
I think the idea that only %0.0001 of people who enter into startups walk out with their lives improved is absurd.
It's a myth that we're all in this game for an FB payout, and it's a myth that that's the reason we want to play the game.
Most of my startups have had payouts to me personally, via either stock buyback (to retain control of the company while securing more funding), or exit deals (in the case of powerset). And even for the cases where I didn't get a big payout, my experience and skills were improved dramatically by the environment and demands placed on me by the job.
I went from working a dead-end job at Lockheed Martin and getting less than 3/4 the fair salary for someone with my skillset to courting jobs and turning people down. Anyone who knows me will tell you I am not a lucky person, and I am not a brilliant star amongst the constellation of smart people that fill the Valley. I simply play the game and move to jobs that balance my personal improvement with my chance for a payout.
I really like your ideas here! But the thing you do where you take what someone else said, and then turn it into something absurd, and then call them out for being absurd... it doesn't really move the dialog forward.
jv22222 said "Alex [is] one the lucky few to be on the 0.0001% side of the equation and raised $2.9 million first round funding"
You translate that to "only %0.0001 of people who enter into startups walk out with their lives improved"
He might also be financially independent (at least on paper) thanks to Twitter stock. That could completely excise one's interest in lifestyle businesses.
Agreed. There's plenty of room in the world for both Alex and Amy's approaches to work, to be valuable, and to make people happy. They don't preclude or cancel out one another. It's all good.
Payne is not deep in the bubble. He just has a very, very firm grasp of what makes him happy. Consider:
"As above, I’m not talking about size or scale, or about maximizing profit."
"What matters is how you can help the most people with what you do."
"That said, there’s nothing wrong with starting small (we all have to, inherently), or even with staying small if that’s what best suits the mechanics of your business."
His argument is more nuanced than "start up and grow big." He explicitly says as much in his article.
You mean like posts about not following your passion? Or following the money? Or telling everyone to chill the fuck out? [0, 1, 2] Are you seriously complaining about sanctimonious blog posts?
A quick peek at your blog suggests Pot and Kettle are having a conversation right now.
Let's take a look at the difference between my writing and his:
1. I don't tell people what to do.
2. I don't tell people that they should do what I say -- FOR THE GOOD OF THE WORLD -- because doing what makes them happy is "not living up to their potential" (paraphrase)
3. I don't rip apart any individual's work, or finger them as a case study in what not to do -- or, much worse, accuse them of "duping credulous customers into overpaying for..."
Take my "Don't Follow Your Passion" post. What do I say? I don't tell people they have to do anything. I give them options and scenarios to help them seek their own happiness.
Example:
"Likewise, if you love slinging code, but hate interacting with people who don’t understand you immediately, then you’re going to be miserable doing training or providing support of any kind. If you love creating dramatic illustrations of people and places, but chafe at people who tell you what to do, being a freelance illustrator is going to rub you raw."
Or here's the whole thesis from "Chill The Fuck Out":
"Make things. Help people. Be happy."
And my actual prescription for people who need to chill?
"If these simple, deeply mundane ideas make you feel challenged and insecure about what you do or what you want, make you feel like striking out, go back to Hacker News. Go read the 98% of tech media that supports your viewpoint.
In other words: Chill the fuck out, Dominant Paradigm. This is not for you."
In other words... unlike what al3x wrote, I gave multiple different paths for people to choose.
There is a huge difference between preaching passionately -- and actually, honest to god telling people what to do, insulting their work, telling them their little dreams are not good enough for THE WORLD.
The only difference between you and Payne is the density of your startup advice. He jammed it all into one post, while you've diffused it over XX entries. Otherwise, the spirit of your posts and Payne's post -- namely, that you and him both have Great Advice To Offer -- is the same.
I don't know, I think the article was off-putting to Alex for the reason that he states: it focuses on achieving personal happiness rather than improving the lives of as many people as possible.
Come on. How many of these companies improve anyone's lives? I doubt the world is any better thanks to Twitter, or Facebook, or Foursquare, certainly not thanks to the various clones, mashups and "me three" companies you see in TechCrunch every day.
Whether or not any of the companies you mentioned (or other vc companies) have made the world better is irrelevant to the question of "Why did Alex react as he did to Justin and Amy's articles?"
Alex provides enough information about his beliefs and about why he thinks those articles conflict with them that I, at least, trust he knows why he reacted the way he did.
What is the point of questioning his level of self-awareness anyway? How does it further the conversation? Really, I don't understand the point of maxklein's comment.
First, he takes issue with the phrase "vocal minority". OK, mISV people are either in the minority or the majority. Why does that matter either way?
Then he ignores the major premise of the article (which I find interesting), and instead psychologizes Alex from behind his computer. What's the point?
The main issue which Alex brings up is far more interesting. What should we value more, personal happiness or improving as many as lives as possible? What organizational structures are most suited to these different goals? Are these goals mutually exclusive, as Alex seems to assume they are?
> Alex provides enough information about his beliefs and about why he thinks those articles conflict with them that I, at least, trust he knows why he reacted the way he did.
Really? I've never met him, but I know plenty of other people who despite providing a lot of information about their beliefs aren't completely candid with themselves about why they're reacting the way they do.
That is a good point, but is it really worth it for a bunch of strangers to debate the issue based on a blog post? I don't understand what anyone has to gain by examining his personal psychological makeup.
On the personal level I know almost nothing about these people (I heard a Mixergy interview with Hoy which was great). My reaction is to the notion that a big company necessarily improves the world more than a small one.
The world is not better because of Twitter or Facebook? They played a role in the recent revolutions and help people connect with family and friends. Why do you think these governments tried to shut down the internet?
They may not have been helpful to you but to others they are.
This is really mostly MSM/blogosphere hype. These revolutions started when people set themselves afire, and risked their lives confronting the army/police. FB might have helped (Youtube probably even more, Twitter almost trivial) but in the same way that a cellphone would.
Governments are now using social media to track dissidents as well, so it's not at all clear the net effect it positive.
Agree with your second point. But Twitter helped spread the YouTube videos so I doubt Twitter is trivial. Communication, whether it's the Internet or cell-phone, helped the revolutions by connecting people and organizing them. But yes, we don't know the net effect and I think it's impossible to know.
There are a lot of people who spend a lot of time on Twitter and breathlessly tell everyone that it's great. Apparently it's not useless to them (although I've never used it, and you probably didn't either), and I don't think there are many big downsides to Twitter. (I'm not so sure that the "no harm done" applies to Facebook, in particular wrt privacy.)
A lot of people are breathlessly excited about Lady Gaga. Does her existence improve the world? Maybe, for them. Would they be worse off if they never heard of her? Probably they'd find someone else to be breathless about.
Note that the smaller Freckle/etc apps are the ones people actually pay for.
Are you seriously disputing the ability of music to make people's lives more enjoyable?
By the way, Lady Gaga is something people actually pay for. If I recall right, her personal income was $60M last year. Presumably people paid a lot more than that for her music/entertainment.
I read that as disputing the exclusive ability of any specific performer to make people's lives enjoyable, while all others will not be able to do so.
Before Gaga, people were paying for Madonna. After Gaga, people will be breathlessly excited and pay for someone else. If there was no Gaga, people would be breathlessly excited and pay for someone else yet.
That's exactly what I meant. I love music. I just don't think "people are breathlessly excited about X" means "X is valuable". A lot of people are excited about reality TV.
Being someone who's trying to live by something close Alex's mantra with my startup (CloudFab, in the digital manufacturing space), I actually think all those companies (Fb, Tw, 4sq) provide very societally valuable things.
How awesome is it that I can talk to old friends on Facebook (which does lead to in-person convo!), get great socially-vetted info on Twitter, or find local tips on Foursquare when traveling.
Okay - maybe Zynga is where I draw the line... ;-) it really does seem like like they're hacking our brains like that fluke* that causes ants to get eaten by animals to spread itself.
But still maybe that knowledge helps all of marketing by example...
People had friends and met significant others before the internet. I'm not saying these apps are bad (they are both bad and good) but that in the bottom line the world isn't necessarily better or worse.
Terrible example by me, sure. But do you know of any Middle Eastern revolutions supported by AIM? Long form journalism ala @MayorEmanuel? Any academic studies examining mood on AIM and how it correlates to stock market performance?
That statement is a bit off-putting. First of all, this 'minority' is the majority. Most software businesses are indeed small, and are not aiming for venture capital and outsized returns. It would not even be mathematically possible to be otherwise.
Secondly, the 'vocal' people are the people trying to make you start a big business. Almost all blogs and writers cater to the startup crowd, not the mISV crowd. Most people writing country specific tax software or inventory sorting software are not blogging at all.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what he means - but to me it seems like he is deep in the bubble, and can't see out of it. That's why the article he reacted to would have been so disturbing to him.