Hacker News Reader

Comment by yesno | Hacker News Reader

Nothing last forever.

Eventually all the "startups that you love" will either close their door or be acquired and I think people should expect that since day 1.

View on HN

Why are these the only 2 outcomes? Why not grow a business?

I guess it depends what kind of investors they've taken on, and how eager they are for a big money exit.

Partly because of the changing pace of technology. A watch company could be pretty sure 100 years ago that watches would still be around in 20 years, sure the technology might need to be updated but not dramatically. You think anyone will even use Heroku in 5 years? There is a new language and technology every month now that gets hype, it's unlikely something like this will continue to grow for the long term.

I'm sorry but that's a bullshit notion. Why is anyone still using PHP today? or Java? Just cause something new comes out, it doesn't automatically displace the old. I think paperback's are more likely to go away before the last rails app is written.

Agreed. Also, why does a company have to be tied to one bit of technology?

We hear a lot that being a good programmer/designer/etc. isn't language-specific but that it is a skill-set that transcends technical knowledge. Why isn't this the same for companies and products?

They offer founders too much money to pass up.

I think we all accept that another outcome can happen.

But the likelihood of independent growth for a platform of any type is incredibly low. For each Google how many Herokus and Friendfeeds are there?

The driving force behind very few independent companies is a lack of an IPO market. Without a payoff for VCs you have to grow organically through customer funding or sell to a big acquirer, or in rare cases pay off investors with debt.

Even if they grow, eventually they'll be too big to remain the "friendly cool kid next door."

With 20,000 employees, it's just not the same.

Either way, you can't expect a founder to stick around for 30 years with the same company and product. It takes a Steve Jobs to keep things interesting over decades.

I think you just nailed why so many modern companies suck.

100 years ago you put your name on the company and treated it's performance as your personal reputation (for better or for worse). Today the most common "strategy" is to build something just good enough that you can attract enough customers to generate a revenue stream that is interesting to someone else, and then wash your hands of it.

This punishes everyone who was willing to suffer with you while you worked out the kinks.

I'm sorry but the whole thing just seems too "deadbeat dad" to me.

Google? I do not recall them being "acquired".

Google is 1 in a [insert the number of startups from 1998 to 2010]

1:xyz

I think you've got the date range wrong there. For many recent startups, it's too soon to tell if they'll avoid death and acquisition and survive as independent companies. You need to look at the companies that have been around long enough to hit it big on their own (most of the current giants) or stay small and friendly but in a sustainable way (harder to find, but by no means unheard of).

Bullshit.

Salesforce.com (you know? That company that just bought Heroku?) was founded in 1999, went public in 2004 and is currently worth ~$20B.

VMWare were founded in 1998, and is worth ~$37B now.

http://www.renaissancecapital.com/IPOHome/Press/IPOIndustry.... shows there have been 37 tech IPOs in 2010, worth ~$5B

http://www.renaissancecapital.com/IPOHome/Press/IPOPricings.... shows IPOs/year. Obviously not all are tech, but a large number are.

Additionally, we all know that there are many companies which are very successful but are deliberately not going public.

Cool stats bro. Chill out, here's a glass of wine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com