Steve's story - Google employee #13
googler13.blogspot.com
googler13.blogspot.com
This guy got out there and hustled for a job. He hustled his way into Netscape by persistently calling and eventually "hacking" his way into contact with a well connected business person.
Then when he was employed at Google, he went out there and hustled dollars that made them actually get some turnover.
It's a story we don't hear very often. It's a story about the people that make the money rather than the people that make the technology.
In a world where so much of the technology sector seems to be predicated on the idea that you build something cool, get users and sort the "money stuff" out later, it's easy to forget that, at some point, someone's gotta get out there and actually make some god damned money.
Having attempted to sell various technological services of my own for the past 4 years, I can whole-heartedly say that in my experience, building the technology is the easy part.
Being able to monetise it is a magical gift!
I'd also like to add that I find it pretty far fetched to refer to this success as "luck". Being a good salesman, being a good hustler, is all about being there. That's why CRM systems are such a vital sales tool - you need to make sure that every few months you call your prospects, and if you don't sell to them then you make an appointment to call back in 3 months and so on.
Whether you're selling vacuum cleaners or selling your own services as an employee or contractor, you can't refer to every successful sales as "luck" - it's success based on persistent action. If anything you'd have to refer to people who hustle well and don't succeed as being unlucky, rather than the other way around.
It's very easy to disparage what they do because from the outside it seems trivial. But I attended a sales meeting once and I'm never taking these guys for granted ever again.
To put it another way, their entire salary is based around selling your work. As a programmer that pulls a normal salary, that means they have more confidence in what you do than you.
Also, company hierarchy almost always dictates that the further you are from the money the more precarious your role is. You could lay off all the engineers tomorrow and the company would limp along for 1-2 years. You lay off all of the sales staff and that company is dead in months.
http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2010/10/serendipity-finds-y...
Yes, this guy got superbly lucky. He also put himself into a position where it was possible to get superbly lucky, and then capitalized on that luck as well as possible.
I've since read about all the popele who I find successful. Here's the conclusion I've come to.
1. They ship things.
2. They work on something everyday.
If you do those two things you will be successful.
It's human nature to pant simplified story's about how something came to be, but the reality is a lot of things have to go right to make a successful person. First off Don't get hit by a bus etc.
We could sit here and think of all the reasons why that isn't true. You need to not get hit by the bus, not be a moron, have lungs, etc. Obviously, if you get hit by the bus its game over and it doesn't matter. The same with all the above.
The point is that we know that successful people ship and work on things everyday. Maybe that's not enough to be a success, but it is the one thing they all have in common.
Let's imagine a world, where all you make is crap. If you shipped crap one of three things will happen. You will become prolific, as in your crap will be everywhere. Look at Shepard Fairy's "Obey Giant." There's nothing special about that, but when you're everywhere it's hard to ignore you.
Another option is that you actually improve. An awesome case study in this is go read iwillteachyoutoberich.com. You can tell from his first post to his posts today Ramit has really improved.
The last option of course is that you neither improve or become prolific and you suck at life in general. Hopefully, you can avoid this, but if you can't at least work on things you think are important and fun. Most people hate their jobs, so it's not google payout success, but it is personal success.
Take a slightly different narrative. J.K Rowling is richer than just about anyone that's going to write an advice book. She made something around 1 billion executing an idea she was amazed to see make 105k. Her first book was rejected by 12 publishing company's for over a year. So, do what you love and double down even when it's not working. (Notice how no pivot is needed nor is improvement.)
There is nothing magical about making money. People spend insane amounts of money on a wide range of things. All you need to do is find out how you can get a tiny slice of that. Sell a 300 million dolor boat to one person or 300 million dollar soda's and they are still a tiny fraction of a single years consumption. But, just 1% of those sales is plenty for most people to retire on.
JK sold entertainment and iwillteachyoutoberich sells a fantasy, they are vary different markets that need completely different approaches. And when you start to look at the approaches to gathering wealth you can start to look at the people who where not successful. And some times it really does just come down to luck. So, find a nitch whose risks and lifestyle agrees with you and have at it.
PS: Although Bloomsbury agreed to publish the book, Cunningham says that he advised Rowling to get a day job, since she had little chance of making money in children’s books. Now, consider was it bad advice at the time? And would it have mattered if she had taken it? I mean the book was already being published, so there was no need to double down at the time.
Thanks for the great discussion!
Knowing and interacting with tons of different people is what creates luck.
Being good at something is what let's you capitalize on it.
You need to know a lot of people who are invested in you personally. That doesn't happen if the relationship is transaction(in an economic sense) based - ie "I'm only interested in talking to you if you can help/buy my product".
You need to go out and help people yourself and ask help from others.
You can ship on an e-mail you spent 12 hours researching to help x with their marketing efforts. Sending the e-mail was shipping.
They're too busy to tell you why they're successful.
I'm sorry to hear that but I think you might have a lot of insights that would help us up and coming entrepreneurs if your willing to share.
Something else is your actual calling. Maybe its helping entrepreneurs?
PS: I'm not trying to sound trite. I mean this sincerely.
35 is still young too, plenty of successful founders at 35, albeit less common then under 30.
This is actually the best comment of the whole thread.
It's just as dangerous to sit on hacker news or read about other people all day as it is to sit infront of the TV or play xbox all day.
You see luck here, I see something far more inspiring and saying just luck may undermine those, IMHO.
That reminds me of a story where a professional golfer took a year off for practicing, no tournaments or other distractions. After that, on his first tournament he started with hole-in-one.
A journalist asked him "surely that must have been luck? Nobody can reliably train a hole-in one", upon which the golfer answered "Yes, it was luck. But the more I train, the luckier I get".
I always loved this answer, because it contains a deep truth: must people who seem to be "lucky" really worked hard, and then had luck too. None of our rich programming idols seems lazy to me.
P.S. I have no idea if the story with the golfer actually happened, or if it's fiction; I can't remember any sources.
A big theme in his talk is how to engineer your luck.
I thought this would be about Google
EDIT: There were lots of people just like him that weren't crazy-successful. It's wonderful that he put himself into a place where he could succeed, but that's only necessary, not sufficient, to realize that success. He deserves credit for buying the ticket and taking the ride, but beyond that it's luck.
The problem I always have is that the right place isn't really apparent until years after the decision about where to be is made. At the time, there're many places that look appealing, and little reason to choose one over the other. And then it's only with hindsight that one of those becomes a big success and the rest become has-beens.
I was thinking about this today when responding to a Reddit post whining about how there're no good high-paying jobs left in this country:
http://www.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/eyu1o/the_unemploym...
Of course that's false. However, when I think about how I got my good high-paying job, the answer that comes to mind is "pure dumb luck". I happened to like computers when I was a teen in the 90s, and I happened to stick with it through the dot-com bust in the early 2000s, and so now that these CS jobs are paying six figures easily, I've got close to ten years experience in skills that are very hot. But I wasn't really thinking about professions or salary at the time; I was thinking "Hey, this seems sorta interesting, I wonder what else I can find out..."
Even companies that don't make it often lead their founders to other great opportunities (e.g. at other yc companies). I also believe there's something surprisingly powerful about witnessing success first hand.
Don't use the place as an excuse.
I'd be curious to hear examples of people who spent a day wearing a sandwich board with their resume in the financial district, and did all the other things this guy did, and did not end up achieving some level of success.
He reminds me of Chris Gardner, who inspired the movie Pursuit of Happyness.
And he started the Warrior Heart Foundation to "inspire and empower people to live their dreams". Unfortunately, I can't find much about it except some videos of their participation in the Gumball rally.
So in at least some parts, that spirit still exists at Google. The problem is that it's much harder to find well-defined problems that are ambitious and yet feasible.
But I'm not a typical user. Chrome's market share is what? 7-10%? That means that 90-93% of Internet users don't even have an Omnibox.
Anyway, I think his point isn't necessarily that Instant is awesome (though I'd imagine he'd think it is), it's that the making of Instant was awesome, and included the same sort of focused teamwork in pursuit of a seemingly impossible goal that early Google had.
[Side note: from everything I've heard, Chrome itself is one of those awesomely-managed projects that contains a large team of people working towards an ambitious goal. Much like early Google.]
If he wasn't in the Bay Area he would have found an incredible opportunity somewhere else, always throwing himself into the path of oncoming opportunities.
At the risk of being sounding judgmental on other people, I will still say, that his now leading a retired(ish) life doesn't jell well with the story of a person, who can do such heroics (like putting a job needed board, on his chest and standing the whole day).
Again, apologize for being preachy, life is a journey, and stagnating at any point, doesn't help...I am about as old as him...have had my share of moderate successes in life... looking for more...some of the best code I've written in my life has been in the past couple of years...look to write lots more ...:)
Its quite insulting to be done so, after having written the comment, with the best of intentions.
PS: If I don't get a satisfactory answer. Will quit HN. It may not matter to you of course.
So my role models are people like Vishy Anand, who at 41, is still the world chess champion (I believe, hacking is also as energy-needing as playing chess)...
The downvoted comment has an unrehearsed, rambling air to it. Frequent comma splices and mis- and overuse of ellipsis (…) don’t help.
The writer is responsible for presenting their ideas effectively. It’s a common courtesy to spare the reader from deciphering a first draft of your ideas.
Come on show some guts. Give me the reason for down voting. I deserve a reply.
(from the document TechnoEquity)
My time spent learning algorithms and mathemathics that bore me with lack of practicality could be spent working on my own projects...
What do you think, is a degree in CS important for someone who is able to employ himself and (soon) others?
How you answer that may help you.
My experience as a student of CS is that you are taught principles that will most likely stay the same for the next 10-40 years. Besides that, every talented student i've met so far figured most of these principles out for themselves before deciding to study cs. Either they learned it out of own interest or just concluded them out of the it world they were presented at the time.
There are a lot of students at my university who put lots of hard hours into learning the cs just because they hope to earn a lot at a stable job with the degree and i don't judge them for their goal, but i wouldn't be interested as an employer in one of them because from my experience the ideas needed for innovation aren't born in a grinding mind.
Also, regarding your final paragraph, innovation isn't the only valuable attribute. The best innovators aren't necessarily the best finishers. A well rounded team needs both to deliver a good product.
I know you were giving your opinion; just trying to provide an alternative point of view.
"One student showed me her resume: it showed perfect GPA, lots of classes with impressive-sounding titles. But no summer job, no internship, no side project.
Another student showed me a less than perfect resume, but it had all kinds of extra-curricular projects and activities, showing exposure to technologies, people and business challenges." (from http://blog.fairsoftware.net/2009/05/13/being-a-new-cs-grad-...)
Sure, they needed to learn to hustle, too, but knowing algorithms sure did help them a lot getting to where they are now.
:)