The one constant that seems to come up in all these founder stories is that you better love what you're doing. There's no guarantee that your new business will be successful or profitable but it seems inevitable you will sink nearly all your time, energy, and money into it. You better be feel rewarded by the journey because that's all you can count on.
That's true. The only founder story I can think of that doesn't fit into the pattern is Scott Adams'.
Here's the counterargument: When I was a commercial
loan officer for a large bank, my boss taught us that
you should never make a loan to someone who is
following his passion.
[...]
My boss, who had been a commercial lender for over 30
years, said that the best loan customer is someone who
has no passion whatsoever, just a desire to work hard
at something that looks good on a spreadsheet.
[...]
On the other hand, Dilbert started out as just one of
many get-rich schemes I was willing to try. When it
started to look as if it might be a success, my passion
for cartooning increased because I realized it could be
my golden ticket.
I actually side entirely with Scott Adams. I feel like it's a really cliche and popular thing to say "Do what you love and success will follow", but it seems like objectively bad advice to pick your profession based on your passion.
We're all passionate about a lot of things that simply aren't commercially viable.
I sell rental application software for a living. It's necessary, a part of the industry, and not something I'm particularly passionate about in subject matter. I AM passionate about doing the absolute best job by a mile and providing the incontestably, incontrovertibly, unambiguously best option on the market for our customers.
Almost EVERYTHING I do (and the awesome people on my team do) has nothing specifically to do with rental application software. Rental application software is just a widget that we sell that has commercial value and therefore pays the bills.
What we do is: software delivery, customer service, operations, listening to our customers, and a bunch of other stuff that is immediately translatable to <any other widget>. But we do the absolute best in industry at those things.
So I'm not really passionate necessarily about "what I do" in the way people thing (rental application software), but we're really passionate about "what I do" in the way that I think of it (running the best damn business).
Rental application software is just this tiny, tiny, tiny kernel of a thing makes it easy to classify what we do into an industry or subject bucket -- but for what we deliver, what we think about, what we REALLY DO, that tiny kernel occupies less than 5% of our thoughts.
I have on more than one occasion heard founders (maybe in the process of pitching for investment dollars) say things like:
> "This is my life's work. I'm passionate about _____"
Where ________ is something like:
- accounting software
- restaurant POS systems
- online coupons
etc...
If they are saying that to convince someone you're all in on it, I get it. I've pitched/sold before. And don't get me wrong, those are important things for someone to do. It's just not really necessary or important to me that those are things that the founder is deeply passionate about.
Yes, I would MUCH rather invest in someone who is truly passionate about that boring thing. But:
1. If it's true, that person is probably awful boring (or alternatively, I have been blessed with really awesome and interesting friends!), and
2. Coupling your financial future to the commercial viability of "what you're passionate about" still strikes me as terrible advice, though admittedly feel-good advice that resonates with a generation of people accustomed to excess disposable income and who consequently have had the ability to pursue passions.
There's no one right answer. At the end of the day it is about perspective. Specifically, Scott Adams' father was loan officer at a bank. Banks are fairly conservative when it comes to giving loans. They want to see business plans and analyze hard numbers before they commit money to entrepreneurs. So when amateurs come to them asking for funding for an idea because "it is their passion," of course the bank turns them down, for passion alone is insufficient AND it has the risk of blinding someone to the reality of how commercially viable the idea really is.
On the other hand, all other things being equal, someone being passionate about basket weaving is more likely to make a successful business out of it than someone who is in it just for the money. Passion can be a nearly bottomless source of motivation, which helps people stick it out when things get rough. After all, starting and running a business is like a roller-coaster ride: one needs to endure the lows to enjoy the highs.
I think that could be a successful formula for co-founding teams: you need one person who is deeply passionate about the topic and another whose main strength is figuring out how to monetize it. That's how Apple became successful.
Reading your comment (and rereading the article about Scott Adams) I came to think that maybe the most successful people are those that can create a passion matching the needs that exist at a certain time. This view fits well with my personal experience.
Regarding Apple I always thought it was
all about the tech in the beginning, for both Steves.
Only one of them developed a passion for business.
Yes and as per the article and my own experience that's especially true when you think about going into food & beverages as it's the complete opposite of what it feels like being a customer - you have to love it (never-ending, physically and psychologically hard work) there really is no other way.
Edit: I enjoyed Peter Thiel's "Competition is For Losers" as it pretty much sums up what is wrong with this industry from a business perspective - http://startupclass.samaltman.com/courses/lec05/
Yes and as per the article and my own experience that's
especially true when you think about going into food &
beverages as it's the complete opposite of what it
feels like being a customer [...]
The article mentions the founder eating fast food at least twice and I found that a nice way to express the difference between how customers see a restaurant owner and reality.
> in all these founder stories [...] you better love what you're doing
I agree with you as a general point but I disagree in that you make it about founders.
As a general rule, if you have the chance/education/abilities to do, you should always pick a job where you love what you're doing, whether you're the founder or an important employee or a random grunt in a giant corporation.
You're going to do that for 8h+ hours a day, 5+ days a week for years on end. Make sure you enjoy it.
Actually, unless you are very unusual, one kind of job you should not pick is one where you love what you're doing, because if you love that activity, so do lots of other people (again, unless you are very unusual), which means they will crowd into that occupation and bid down wages and working conditions until life for almost everyone in that occupation is shit.
Mind you, it's also bad to be in a job you hate. Forty hours a week doing something you hate is a big negative impact on quality of life.
If you're going to be working for money, what you should aim for is something that pays decently and you don't hate.
The problem with that theory is that just because you don't love it doesn't mean that there aren't lots of others who do love it. Trading off your joy doesn't mean you aren't still competing in a field where your competitors love it ... it just means you don't.
For the concern you cite, avoiding what you love is misguided, you want to actually study the markets for various options to see what is getting bid down -- and choose something that has an attractive combination of economic conditions resulting from others preferences and interaction with your preferences.
It's not as easy as it could be but you can accomplish aggregate pushdown by using executor hooks in your FDW. As an example I'd point you to our (Citus Data) recent work on doing this with our columnar store foreign data wrapper:
Thanks! Reminding myself of her feedback I think that pacing might be a significant issue which is something I hadn't considered too much (oddly).
She's someone that has lots of computer experience but the closest she's gotten to programming before is simple Excel functions (think SUM). I think she'll be much more excited by one where she's working on "real world" stuff so I'm leaving a bit towards Creative Programming for Digital Media & Mobile Apps and hope that it spurs her to learn even more.
The business implications of this are interesting. In my opinion this is another warning shot that if you don't open source your business someone else may just do it for you. If I was LiveFyre or Disqus I'd definitely be nervous about Mozilla coming into my space and building competing software with a commitment from two of the big players to use it. Leveraging open source by adding value via services or premium offerings has been a very powerful business model in the last few years.
Interesting, I've have had the exact opposite experience for #2. If there's a movie, or TV show that I want to watch I'd rather pay $5 to watch it than just be told it's not available. This has had such a strong effect on me that if there's something in particular I want to watch I go to Amazon before Netflix simply because I know I will more likely have an option to watch what I want (even if it costs money). Personally I feel like Netflix has back themselves into a corner by only having one all-inclusive price level.
That said the part about Amazon that infuriates me is when they have the movies available but not for rent and only offer the pay $15 to own option. Also the Netflix discovery/browse is experience is light years better than Amazon's.
The benchmarks use cstore_fdw which is a columnar store that is accessed via the PostgreSQL foreign data wrapper system.
ICMS is a different implementation of a columnar store for PostgreSQL. I don't know it extremely well but my understanding is that it uses the PostgreSQL shared memory system to allocate memory for a columnar store. This columnar store is not queried via standard SQL commands but rather using a combination of a custom query language and some user defined functions.
