People in this space live in a thickly-lined bubble if they think something like Evernote is changing the world. Wisdom is not suddenly bestowed upon you because your note-taking service was recently valued at $1+ billion.
I have always had a really hard time heeding to the advice of rich people who tell you what all the right and wrong reasons to become an entrepreneur are, especially when they start preaching about how it's not about the money, but about the journey.
Also, "don't do it"? I'm sure companies that are having 100x more of an impact in this world than Evernote will ever have were started by people who very bluntly went against that sort of advice. Steve Jobs' "Stay hungry, stay foolish" comes to mind, and I'll side with his blissfully ignorant optimism any day.
I think you are thinking of "change the world" in the "topple bad governments, empower the meek, help make this world a utopia" type of way. Evernote is changing the world.
If you make 30 million people's lives just a tad bit easier, then yes, you've changed the world. If you've caused other companies to take note and copy your business strategy/idea and THEY make people's lives easier, then yes you've changed the world.
Yes, he's rich, but I think he's saying that was a side effect of purer motivations. If you're in it to be rich, then you're in it for the wrong reasons. If you're in it create an amazing product and be impactful on a stranger's life, then you're in it for the right reasons.
"side effect of purer motivations. If you're in it to be rich, then you're in it for the wrong reasons. If you're in it create an amazing product and be impactful on a stranger's life, then you're in it for the right reasons"
"Right reasons". The judgmental-nis of that is what I don't like.
Why do people comment on HN? One reason that I do is because of the good feeling that I get from passing along what I know. I've always liked to teach others what I know online and also offline. Wrapped into that though is the acknowledgement from others that they like what I've said that ends up in the "mental" bank and makes me feel good.
I don't think you can have one without the other. And is there really anything wrong with doing for others even if solely for the "wrong" reason which would be the deposit into the mental bank?
Actually, I think a lot of folks find that to have an impact, you often have to charge for it. Somebody's gotta keep the lights on, and there's a weird tic of human psychology where people associate cost with value. Many an entrepreneur has discovered you can't give it way, yet the more you charge, the more people buy.
I'm not saying you can't do well by doing good. I'm just saying that people need to admit they are in business to succeed in business rather than for an altruistic cause. There's a whole sector of benefit-corps, cooperatives, and chartered social enterprises for altruistic causes.
If you are doing well by exploiting people, you shouldn't expect any sort of respect. There are all sorts of charlatans who sell awful damaging products who do well financially. Some more obvious examples are gambling and fake medical products like those holographic armbands or homeopathy.
If your end goal is to make money for yourself at all costs, don't expect any sort of respect or good people to work with.
In 2009 I ran out of cash after what I'd describe as a stab at changing the world using a naive & altruistic approach. Now I make money, which is way better :)
"Change" has a large semantic field. For example, there's the word "change," and then there's the rallying cry: change. When regular folk talk about changing the world, they're talking about something fundamentally different from what you're talking about.
(Why do so many HN-type entrepreneurs want to make "change the world" apply to toy apps that really do nothing of the kind? There's no reason to feel insecure about building toy apps, so no reason to reframe them as being world-changing, either.)
Kicking a rock on the street is different than the other examples you gave in that the directly measured impact is minimal.
It is possible that it could cause major change (in a butterfly effect kind of way), but usually it would be hard to measure and predict.
But if you kick a rock and a few days later that rock ends up causing an accident of an "important" person you did in fact "change the world" by kicking that rock.
IMO, the other things that you mentioned have changed the world.
I think people are hearing "change the world" and attaching that meaning to two things. First that it must be an altruistic change, and second that it must impact all the world (and hence the entire worlds 7 billion population).
I completely agree, and it's not because I think he is necessarily wrong. It's just that business rules of any kind are so freaking ridiculous. One person's interpretation of the "right" reasons are no more valid than one person's opinion of the quality of a book or movie.
You say you shouldn't start a business because you want to get rich? I think Sheldon Adelson, Ray Dalio, and Mark Cuban might disagree.
You say you shouldn't start a business because you want to be your own boss? I think Vineyard Vines and 37Signals might disagree.
I think we're in this Steve Jobs era where every successful CEO wants to suddenly espouse Steve Jobs' philosophies as if that will somehow bring them similar successes. But in reality, for every Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg, there are thousands of people who yes, just did it for the money. Some succeed, some fail. I'm not sure about the 99% failure statistic, but to just throw that out without any qualification is ridiculous.
I have a good friend who owns a local high-end video equipment rental business. You will never hear of him, but he makes about $250k a year and has an outstanding life. I can assure you he is no rocket scientist and he certainly isn't out to change the world. He just did it and didn't really do much investigating first. I think that's probably the best advice you can give- don't look for generalized advice. It doesn't help you and will probably harm you.
Evernote is definitely changing the world. I use it almost every day, and my notes are automagically synced across all my devices. I get the impression that I am not alone.
The amount of good a company does is the number of people helped times the average good done per person. If your company is a medical clinic, the number of people is small, and the good per person is large. If your company is Evernote, the good per person is small, but the number of people is enormous. Don't underestimate the value of a company that improves each person's life just a little, but does it by the hundreds of millions.
I am a paying Evernote customer. And let's be honest it doesn't in anyway offer something magical.
iCloud enabled apps (see how well Reminders works on Mountain Lion) are starting to show how well cloud services can work. And Microsoft won't be far behind.
Services like Evernote will be taken down by the onslaught of "automatically synced" apps that is coming. Many of which will be going right for Evernote's jugular.
"A lot of people think that they want to be an entrepreneur because it’s a good way to make money. It just isn’t, that’s just wrong. Depending on how you count, 95% to 99% of companies fail."
Excuse me. It is a way to make money. That figure assumes the definition of entrepreneur is only startups as discussed in places like HN, Techcrunch etc.
Not only is the figure of 95% or 99% wrong with respect to "entrepreneurs" (unless of course you increase the time to, say, 100 years at which case it may be true across the board) but its like saying "don't apply to Harvard or YC because the chance...". It doesn't take into account any particular persons idea or qualifications to be a success.
But most importantly, the definition of being an entrepreneur also includes running a small restaurant or opening a physical warehouse and selling exercise equipment or starting a website to sell new and used office desks or a million other ideas that will never make it to HN or TC that can make you a good living.
> Not only is the figure of 95% or 99% wrong with respect to "entrepreneurs"
I believe he's quoting numbers from Shikhar Ghosh at HBS. Here's one article that google brought up with a little more detail about how "failure" is defined:
The statistics are disheartening no matter how an entrepreneur defines failure. If failure means liquidating all assets, with investors losing most or all the money they put into the company, then the failure rate for start-ups is 30 to 40 percent, according to Shikhar Ghosh, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School who has held top executive positions at some eight technology-based start-ups. If failure refers to failing to see the projected return on investment, then the failure rate is 70 to 80 percent. And if failure is defined as declaring a projection and then falling short of meeting it, then the failure rate is a whopping 90 to 95 percent.
Great detail on the source of that stat. The use of that 90-95 percent metric is next to meaningless in defining failure rates of startups. There are tons of successful companies generating great returns who have not met the initial projections, because initial projections tend to be unrealistic.
I founded a startup that's profitable and doing $5mm in revenue but would be considered a "failure" because at the beginning we played the hockeystick revenue projection dance (partly to appease potential investors, who discount whatever number you give them anyway, and partly because we were wildly optimistic).
Yup. But I'd like to see the numbers for second or third try entrepreneurs. of all types. If my first three goes tank it, but the fourth one makes it, OHBOYOHBOYOHBOY!. Then I've got a 75% fail rate, but I'm still a success. (insert inspirational "fall down seven times, stand up eight",I havent failed, I just found 99 ways that don't work" etc...)
Don't know why people are voting you down. I'd rather hit middle-age penniless but full of experience and no regret, than look back and say "Well, I sure managed to scrape by in life without taking any chances or attempting any of my dreams!" There are plenty of stories of people who didn't start successful business until their 40s but the net effect of the preceding 20/30 years gave them a massive boost (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Bannatyne).
I don't follow this logic as a valid reason not to become an entrepreneur.
1. The 90..95% definition is stupid. Projections are irrelevant other than for purposes of planning, appeasing investors and roughly determining whether the business model is viable. Depending on the entrepreneur's goals, actual long-term ROI is all that matters.
2. In that respect, 70 to 80% failure to generate projected ROI is not bad. I've never been in the 80-percentile of anything of I've done, therefore these statistics are actually pretty encouraging to me.
"projected" return, "declaring" a projection then "falling short"...
These terms invalidate the given statistics, rendering them essentially meaningless. These figures are geared toward being consumed by finance professionals, not by people actually running small businesses or who found startups.
Also, it's important to note that most startups that fail to make money, also fail to change the world. So if statistics are the reason why you shouldn't start a company for money. That's the same reason why you shouldn't start a company to change the world.
The argument Phil Libin is making very silly and very typical kind of advice from people who are not really trying to help you at all.
The average expected income from working at a large corporate may well be higher than founding a startup. But there's at least the chance of making a lot of money in a startup. It's very unlikely that you'll stumble into a windfall working for a large corporation.
"You can't win if you don't play" isn't any less true with the lottery, you're just looking at much worse odds than other, more preferable, situations.
Its also very unlikely you'll stumble into a windfall founding or working for a startup. Its something some may not want to hear but from a purely financial perspective of startup vs corp, 99% of cases it is always going to be financially better to work for a corp.
If you're working for a startup hopefully you are doing it for better reasons.
There's nothing stopping you from hedging your bets. I work full-time and put away 60%+ of it. This is capital for whatever investments I make, including into my own startup that I work on when I get home. Fact is I get paid what I do by the corp because I'm worth at least that much. As a single, unmarried software developer there's nothing stopping me from exploiting my value generating capabilities directly, so not attempting a startup is nonsensical IMO.
"I think you know what it is: it’s to change the world"
This is such hogwash and brainwashing. People have to earn money and make a living. Nothing wrong with that at all. And if you want to change the world you have a better chance after earning a load of money.
There are people who have gone into medicine to make money (and not better the world and save lives) and are great physicians and provide a service. And they live in big houses have expensive things and enjoy themselves. That's fine. Nothing to apologize about. Same with entrepreneurship or any pursuit (education).
Nowhere in the article was "earning money" chastised as being bad. It just suggested there are better options if that is your main goal.
"If you’re smart enough, if you’re talented enough, if you have the drive, if you have the ability, and you’re motivated by making money, then you should just get a real job instead, like become a banker or an investor or a consultant or something. You’ll be much more likely to make a lot of money over the course of your career than by starting a company."
"It just suggested there are better options if that is your main goal"
Totally depends on the person. I visited my dentist the other day who clearly didn't have a business head on him (we've spoken many times). He is better off and will make a better living as a dentist giving his intelligence and abilities. I'm married to a Physician and wanted to set her up in her own office. She isn't interested, she would rather just work for the Hospital and get a salary. Everyone is different. The best option for a particular person to make money depends on the persona and their abilities.
As an aside, as far as being a "consultant". In general (as always) a consultant doesn't really build any equity unless they have others working for them. They don't have anything to sell (to someone else as an entity) and over time need to constantly pick up clients and interact with clients. I built a business and after 10 years I had something to sell. It was something that didn't depend on me it had customers, employees etc.
That final statement is unfounded. If you have all those things, you're far more likely to make more money (and faster money) by building your own business.
You cannot escape this simple fact: if you're an employee, you are only getting a portion of the value you can and do generate. The only remaining question is whether you have the resources and environment to capture the value you can generate directly, without being the employee, to receive a larger slice of the value. (If you're, e.g. a doctor it's much more difficult than if you're a software developer; good thing I'm the latter.)
Or, if you really want to change the world, alleviate the spectre of massive world hunger by coming up with radical agricultural techniques and selective breeding for drought resistance, then teach that technique to everyone you know for free[1].
Or, come up with a novel vaccine for one of our most vexing diseases of our time, then give away the formulation for free[2].
That's how you change the world.
Cue the capitalism-as-religion downvote squad, but this guy is a world class putz if he thinks a cloud-based notepad is changing anything but 1st world slight inconvenience.
> But there’s only one good, legitimate reason, and I think you know what it is: it’s to change the world.
I think this is going overboard. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to want to start his/her own company for less noble reasons than "changing the world." This advises people to not give it a shot at all. Would I like to change the world? Yes, I would. Do I reasonably expect that it will happen? No, I'm more realistic than that. While I'm still young and don't have much tying me down, though, I want to give it a shot. I'd much rather try, fail, and then have to go back to the workforce than wind up staying the workforce my whole life regretting not trying to start my own thing. I suppose you could make the argument that any successful company will have to add value to the world in some way, and adding value to the world changes it, but that isn't the way the statement reads.
1. Not all CEO's work 20 hour days, and he probably doesn't either
2. Starting your own company can give you the ability to challenge the outdated 9-to-5 sit-at-your-desk status quo more than working for someone else can
3. His skewed view of upcoming entrepreneurs as only the subset that bother him for advice doesn't reflect on you or your ability to successfully launch your own business
4. Seriously, Evernote? It's cloud data with a bow around it.
5. Working long hours doesn't mean slaving away at the office for long hours, it means that you're always "on". If you start a business around something you're passionate about, you'll be thinking about it all day anyway.
6. Ryan Carson just told us last week that he works 32 hours a week, and his company impacts the world a whole lot more than Evernote IMO (subjective, yes, but Treehouse and Carsonified educate and connect people in a way they couldn't have done otherwise, whereas you can eliminate the need for Evernote by creating a folder or two on Dropbox).
7. If you fail, you can always try again and/or re-join the work force.
8. Most people would feel a lot better about trying and failing than not trying at all.
And the number one reason I'd say this video should be completely ignored is that you might actually succeed.
This video tells me very little about entrepreneurship. The real message is that Evernote is run by a pretty unlikeable guy who would advise you, without getting to know you, to be a working stiff your entire life instead of taking chances. Advice that he obviously would not have taken himself.
> If you’re smart enough, if you’re talented enough, if you have the drive, if you have the ability, and you’re motivated by making money, then you should just get a real job instead, like become a banker or an investor or a consultant or something.
This sounds like terrible advice for someone who is not motivated to do the work of a banker or investor or consultant. I've seen many exceptionally driven people lose their drive when employed at the wrong occupation.
I love Evernote. It has changed my life. Before, I didn't have anywhere to put all the ideas, insights, jokes, and stories I had in my head. Now, with one key from anywhere I can get it out of my head and the feeling is incredible.
But, fuck the CEO of Evernote. How dare he tell people not to start a company? Not only is it idiotic (I mean, first and foremost, he did it so he's a hypocrit; but secondly, someone started every company that exists. So if people actually followed his advice we'd be stuck with the current crop of companies...forever) but it's downright evil. To discourage people from starting companies is to discourage people from building, from creating, from giving form to their dreams. And that's inexcusable.
tl;dr Evernote is great; the CEO is a fuckwit.
EDIT: I got my first downvote, but I don't care. Discouraging people from creating is evil, and when confronting evil there's no place for 'nice'.
I wonder how many of these speeches are motivated by salesmanship? Like, Do it because you've got a decent idea and you kinda think it might work and maybe you'll make a little bit of money just doesn't have the same ring to it as Go change the world, kid!
So, in order to get invited (or invited back) to speak in front of 100s of people and plug your product/company, you change your speech (and backstory) until it fits the mantra-du-jour. 3 years ago, the speech would be "Fail Fast". A year ago, it would be "Learn to Pivot". Today, it's "Change the World!"
As others have mentioned here, Evernote is not really an earth-shattering, universe-changing product. That's perfectly OK in my book, but own up to that fact. It's tiresome to hear people rewrite history and their own motivations just to sell themselves.
This article's title is misleading, it should read more like "...Don't do it for the wrong reasons" as he explains in the actual post. Beyond these reasons there are tons of people who want to make a company because:
- They will offer something novel or fresh
- They have the passion to change an industry that has otherwise been stagnant
- They want to offer choice or competition for a product that has been relatively monopolized
- And to a smaller degree if they're outside of the NYC/SF area, bring the tech scene to other areas of the world
I think all of these reasons are good and fall under the "change the world" reason outlined in the article.
People seem to be misinterpreting the article by assuming that these can't be factors at all. It's pretty clear that everyone needs an income. These should be interpreted as primary reasons and that I agree with completely.
If your primary goal is to make yourself money or get power, it is guaranteed that the rest of your company does not share your vision and if they knew about it, they would probably try to find other jobs.
It's more than that. He's conflating personal motivation with business model validation. Yes your business model should be validated, but what's wrong with pursuing money?
My goal has long been to work on my interests without having to worry about money. But to do so requires financial independence. That's reality. So now I'm pursuing money and looking at ways of generating income without selling my time.
Is there any real evidence to show that people who pursue money don't end up successful? I doubt it.
Evernote is obviously a very successful company, and I'm sure Phil Libin is a smart guy, but he comes off as a total snob saying this...
> "I think you know what it is: it’s to change the world"
Most people who start a company start it to MAKE MONEY. Of course, he presents us with a false dilemma: you can either aspire to change the world, or have the desire to make money, earn power, etc. These are not mutually exclusive options. It's noble and all to want to change the world, but most people probably are out there trying to make a living...
> "If you’re smart enough, if you’re talented enough, if you have the drive, if you have the ability, and you’re motivated by making money, then you should just get a real job instead, like become a banker or an investor or a consultant or something."
I'd be fine with this if he finished the sentence with "become something you're passionate about." If you have all the qualities he mentions in the first part of the sentence, than pursue something you're genuinely interested in.
As a side note, I'd be interested to see a list of some entrepreneurs who started companies with the sole intention of changing the world...
As someone who's about to become an entrepreneur, my reasons are:
- Money: I do believe I can make a lot of money with the company I intend to start, but I should say I'm not going to start anything revolutionary, just corner a part of the market where there's a big demand (mobile development by contract). It should make me more money in less time then my current job does.
- Flextime: I'm a bit of a work-a-holic so I'm kinda used to working 6 days a week. Most of the time I enjoy it. What I don't enjoy in a regular job is the fact that my employer wants me to work from 9 to 5. I'd like to be able to go jogging and shopping in the afternoon for example and continue some work early in the evening.
- Fun: I enjoy short-term projects (1 to 2 months) more then long-term projects (1 year or more).
- Power: well, with power I mostly think about the power to choose my own working processes and tools and not be limited with what my manager decides upon. For example: I'm not very fond of many aspects of SCRUM, but it seems kinda popular these days.
"you should just get a real job instead, like become a banker or an investor or a consultant or something"
yeah, consulting. the pie-eating contest where the prize is more pie. but at least you have a nice salary to pay back your MBA student loans. and you get to travel every week and get fat eating out every meal and drinking at networking events.
In direct contrast to software jobs, where you can stay very healthy by spending an hour in the gym every day after sitting in a cubicle for your 10-hour workday.
If you eat well and go to the gym for an intense (ie. not just jogging on the treadmill) 1-hour workout every day, I think you'll be in quite decent shape.
Actually, no. Sitting for large periods of time, past a certain age as I remember, is simply harmful to your health. You can't "make it up" with exercise later in the day.
You don't make it up the negative effect of sitting, but you'll be in generally better shape, perhaps by a greater margin than someone who never sits but also never gets any strenuous exercise.
It felt like I was a fresher listening to a senior at college doing the raw talk about the truths at college. You might not like them at first, but you will realize utterly that they are the truths and might even find yourself saying the same to another fellow, a different day.
I couldn't agree with everything though - Evernote is second brain of the universe? Is it not under rating the human brain? Human brain is capable of many amazing things. If I am going to hear some one call something a second brain, it should be able to take decisions. Evernote is only a digital notebook that is accessible from many platforms keeping all the users away from a lot of dirty work(copying, syncing, etc.). That's it. I don't think that could ever CHANGE THE WORLD. That will only MAKE MY LIFE EASIER. I could even argue that entrepreneurship is more about MAKING MY LIFE EASIER than about CHANGING THE WORLD.
When I get five minutes of waiting time, I don't open evernote to write something or read something. I open my twitter account and follow up with the links on hackernewsbot and few other tweets from people I like. That makes me feel productive. If I don't feel like reading technical things, I open my facebook and check what my friends are upto and I still feel productive.
> A lot of people think that they want to be an entrepreneur because it’s a good way to make money. It just isn’t, that’s just wrong. Depending on how you count, 95% to 99% of companies fail.
Bubbles like the one we have now are not common. It will continue until the Fed takes away the punchbowl, so make hay while the sun shines (and mix those metaphors while the mixing is good.)
What about the entrepreneurs who pay themselves ridiculous salaries once they get even a little funding? It seems like a great way to make money. Our founder is the highest paid person in the company and we live one month at a time because of it. Is this common during the bubble, or is my situation unique?
Highest paid is fact, one month at a time is opinion.
I thought it was nuts then: Weren't the people/VCs supplying the money paying attention? After a while, you realize that easy money covers up a lot of sins over several levels of the foodchain.
When money tightens, those sins will be expurgated, but until then: Party on.
EDIT: To expand a bit, it's not "normal" as ericflo says in another reply and I agree it's a "bad" sign.
I'm just pointing out that as long as those supplying the money are seeing positive returns, they're busy working their other opportunities. When Sequoia republishes "RIP: Good Times", out comes the microscope on spending and board meetings will go over details that were ignored before.
I don't think this advice applies to every type of business. Particularly service-oriented startups that are able to land paying clients right from the beginning.
I will agree though that working at a company that isn't financially stable is not a good place for someone who needs financial stability. Imagine your boss telling you that your next paycheck will only be half - or they can't pay it at all, but you'll get paid back later. Imagine that happening occasionally throughout the year. Add to that a constant, looming feeling that your company could go out of business any day even though you love working there. If those kinds of things upset or stress you out then a startup probably isn't a good place to work.
Actually, I'm a mid grade officer in the Navy; I was recently told I was "part of the seniority plan" in my unit. I knew where Libin was going with that as soon as I read the subtitle. I answer to everyone!
IMHO the article misses the best part of the talk (in the middle somewhere). Ironically, given the "don't do it" bit.. Libin makes the point that now's a better time than ever to be an entrepreneur, and among the usual OSS/StuffsCheapNow points, he concludes that today the best product is more likely to 'win' than it has been in the past... Especially in the consumer space. Further pointing out that this essentially creates a meritocracy for people who are good at making things (even if they suck at sales/marketing).
The talk is definitely better than the flamebait title.
Who's the audience? Sounds to me like he's looking for employees who will take a piece of changing the world (equity?) over cold hard cash.
Based on all the talkers I hear, and the positive feedback they constantly get about how "cool" it is that they want to be an entrepreneur.. I think a good hard "don't do it" would be helpful fire under their butts to JFDI.
Reason to do it: Because you have to. When all else fails, your only option my be to hustle up your own work. For the thousands of people in the U.S. who have been unemployed for over a year, do it! I'm another example, I live in the Philippines but I can't work here because I'm a U.S. citizen, so my only option is running my own business.
I hear this exact message a million times on Hacker News: a speech from an entrepreneur discouraging others to be like him/her... unless they are really serious about it. This is played to the point of cliche. For once, I'd love to see an article entitled "don't do it" and really actually mean it.
"Seven out of 10 new employer firms survive at least 2 years, half at least 5 years, a third at least 10 years, and a quarter stay in business 15 years or more." - According to the US SBA http://s831.us/IXGBFK
Who doesn't start a business thinking they're going to make money? Wouldn't it otherwise be called charity or a hobby? Sure, maybe not hogwild money, but I think getting paid for something for delivering something of value might be a definition of business?
I don't know anyone who makes more than $500K a year. Everyone I know who makes more than $60K a year running their own business, says their only regret is not starting earlier.
We're supposed to be his employees instead of challenging him in a crowded market. This way he makes more money from ideas we might have put forward and each one of us is one less competitor for him.
Really though, if an entrepreneur is going to be dissuaded by this speech, they probably shouldn't be trying in the first place.
Ooh, me, me, pick me. Let me guess! Do it because you want to change the world?
It's a laughable, tired cliche now, especially coming from a guy who made the equivalent of a digital hipster moleskine who isn't changing a god damn thing about this world. People are still broke, sick, and starving. But I can take awesome notes on my MacBook Air!
The better answer is "because it's interesting and fun and challenging and sometimes disappointing and a fantastic learning experience and you might get rich or go broke while experiencing the full, unfiltered range of human emotions and potential".
It also happens to be more truthful and conforms more to the modal outcome.
"because it's interesting and fun and challenging and sometimes disappointing and a fantastic learning experience and you might get rich or go broke while experiencing the full, unfiltered range of human emotions and potential"
This is one of the best articulations of why I'm an entrepreneur that I've read. Thanks.
Absolutely agreed. All I know is I will COMPLETELY lose my mind if I'm still working for somebody else (as a contractor or employee) in 5 years; his advice to stick with the paying job while figuring out what you want doesn't address what to do when your repeated conclusion after all the thinking is: "work for myself, build out my ideas".
The only way to deal with this conclusion is to act: to go out there and experience working for yourself, and test your instincts and savy against reality. I don't care whether my projects succeed or fail at this point; I'm just happy I'm focused on exploring my potential and my desires.
I still have the day job, for security and capital, and I have only chosen to pursue ideas that DO impact people's lives (otherwise why would people use it?); none of this stuff is mutually exclusive!
Changing the world doesn't necessarily mean you're going to somehow rid the world of broke, sick, and starving people. But I agree, this guy is taking himself way too seriously. I guess he gave the world a new way of taking notes, but come on.
It's lofty wording, but he does go on to explain it's not necessarily changing the world in a huge way that matters so much, just that changing the world in any degree is at the core of your motivation. Judging by their growth, Evernote helps a lot of people, it doesn't cure cancer, but it still helps by doing what it does.
Personally, I'd rather have successful entrepreneurs selling this story than saying it's all about making money, sailing on your yacht surrounded with beautiful women, sipping on champagne. It's incredibly idealistic, but I think entrepreneurship needs to attract incredibly idealistic people more than any other type.
For the record, I've never used Evernote (pen and paper does the task nicely), so the above assumption of Evernote helping people is based on their business results from the video, which would imply a useful product.
I have always had a really hard time heeding to the advice of rich people who tell you what all the right and wrong reasons to become an entrepreneur are, especially when they start preaching about how it's not about the money, but about the journey.
Also, "don't do it"? I'm sure companies that are having 100x more of an impact in this world than Evernote will ever have were started by people who very bluntly went against that sort of advice. Steve Jobs' "Stay hungry, stay foolish" comes to mind, and I'll side with his blissfully ignorant optimism any day.