Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | data_app's comments login

I think many people on this thread don't understand the importance of "mission". Mission plays a big role in hiring the best talent - without a mission, you are like a rudderless ship. You may make money in the short-term but you are not building a great company for the future.


"So, contrary to the article, I think that there are plenty of people from investors to founders to employees who are simply chasing a buck. So much so, that from outside SV (and from many quarters within), it has become the understood ethos of the valley."

Those VCs are not AZ16 + those startups are not the future facebooks or googles of the world.


>Those VCs are not AZ16 + those startups are not the future facebooks or googles of the world

Perhaps not. But, when the article is quoting Jobs as saying:

“I want to make a ding in the universe. I want to make beautiful products that people love.”

It makes me wonder how we're defining mission. Making products that people love is what every company strives to do. Doesn't seem like much of a standard to me, and declaring that by so doing you hope to make a dent in the universe doesn't make it any moreso.

So, I'd ask Mr. Andreessen, "Is that it? Does the desire to make products that people love qualify for a16z's mission requirement?" Because, if so, then I'm having trouble seeing where that investment philosophy really differs.

The other part is with regard to recruiting and the overall SV ethos. It may be true that select people want to work for companies with a mission. And, maybe many do--all things being equal. But, his "insight" that a person would rather work for $120K plus a mission than $120K and no mission is self-evident and doesn't tell us anything. The test of his theory is whether people are willing to work for $60K plus a mission.

And the thing is we know that so many people are really just chasing a buck. We see this in what has been coming out of SV; the glut of copycat and uninspired businesses aimed at this or that trivial opportunity and the relative dearth of companies taking on really hard or "mission-worthy" challenges.

I am not saying that there are zero companies of the latter ilk. I am saying that this article is making statements about the current reality that just don't ring true. Look no further than the "fail-fast", "iterate quickly", "look for pivots", "find product-market fit" culture that has dominated SV over recent years. Do any of those things sound conducive to building companies that are on a mission? Or do they sound more applicable to companies that are just looking to make a buck any way they can?

Maybe Mr. Andreessen is decrying that same culture. But, the article doesn't help by making declarations about the current state that don't appear to be accurate.


what? After all this ruckus..


apps dashboard says app but gmail is down for me and my co-workers as well.


Continuuity is hiring: http://continuuity.com/careers/

We are hiring software engineers, tools engineer, devops engineer, front end engineer etc. in engineering roles. We are also looking for a project manager, graphics designer and PR Manager.

We are a small team of 20+ based out of Palo Alto, CA. Our goal is to make it easy for Java developers to build Big Data/Hadoop apps. We are looking for people who have worked on hard Big Data/Hadoop problems. We are well funded (seed $2.5M + Series A $10M) and backed by AZ16, Ignition Ventures, Battery Ventures etc. Check out our careers page.


Great post. Thanks for writing this - you have guts! Many here think the same way but too afraid to say so.


You really need that sarcasm tag.


I simply don't understand the obsession of founders with getting into YC. If you are a founder and you are really passionate about an idea, you simply don't have time to think about "how to game the system and get into an incubator". You have more important things to think about - like product-market fit, hiring the right people etc. etc. In Aileen's Lee recent article about unicorns or billion dollar startups - 2 out of 39 were YC companies, the rest 37 were not.


Another interesting data point:

2 out of the 39 are YC alums.


If MBA is such a negative hiring signal (for startups) - why do I see so many MBAs in startups? The data shows that there are as many MBAs as PhDs or Masters. (% working in startups vs total pool).

Just like a degree in computer science teaches you the inner workings of a computer, a degree in business administration teaches you how to run a business. How can that knowledge be invaluable in a startup?

I do believe that certain segment (including the author) of the population has a strong negative bias against MBAs but majority aren't... Most mature+experienced tech founders understands the value of an MBA degree and even if they don't, they treat it as any other degree...


That is the talking point of Google haters. Sounds like I am listening to Hannity on Hacker News.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: