Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonnathanson | Hacker News Reader

This is a great, concise story.

To me, the most valuable insight in this article isn't that a non-tech founder needs to get super-technical. Rather, it's that he needs to demonstrate a willingness to do everything he possibly can. That is the secret sauce. It's not about being able to talk shot for shot with a super-techy coder. It's about not being the kind of person who throws his hands up in the air and sets limits to what he can or can't do, or will or won't do. Being a successful entrepreneur means doing anything and everything it takes to get to success. And it's a serious red flag when the co-founder, from the get-go, is already broadcasting that he's setting limits for himself (such as not even attempting a prototype).

So big kudos to you for posting this. This is awesome and inspiring.

View on HN

"Being a successful entrepreneur means doing anything and everything it takes to get to success."

I think the world would be a healthier place if we didn't place so much ... emphasis ... on the idea of "do whatever it takes to succeed". Just look at what Airbnb did to succeed, for example.

Apologies. I have been known to go hog-wild on the italics. It's an addiction I am trying to break. Some people have their exclamation marks. Others have their emoticons. I have my trigger-happy asterisks.

Er... I didn't mean to make it sound like I was making fun of you. I wasn't, sorry.

I'm truly serious: emphasis on "do whatever it takes to succeed" results in people doing illegal and immoral things to succeed, such as what Airbnb did.

I think that's an over-simplification. Call me naive, but I think that to most people, "do whatever it takes to succeed" assumes a certain baseline of ethics in the intended audience.

This phrase here is meant to spur the reader to do the right sorts of "anything": being disciplined, getting out of their comfort zone, learning, taking risks, getting their "hands dirty" in good honest work, hacking and building.

The author cannot be blamed for those who act immorally because they lack ethical training or discipline.

Nothing AirBNB did was illegal or immoral. The most you can say about what they did was that it was mildly annoying.

What AirBNB did was directly illegal and immoral.

It was illegal because it violated the CAN-SPAM act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003#The_mechan... .... CAN-SPAM defines a "commercial electronic mail message" as "any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service, including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial purpose."

(The fact that they weren't punished for their crimes illustrates the hypocrisy of our legal system, but does not change the fact that they violated the law for personal gain.)

It was immoral because it violated Craigslist TOS, and because they portrayed themselves as females in order to make other females feel safe using their service.

Here's another quote from the page:

"In particular, it does not require e-mailers to get permission before they send marketing messages"

Can you point to a single case where someone did what AirBNB did and got a conviction?

Also, violating craigslist TOS is debatable, pretending to be females is not on it's face immoral.

I think he was referring to this: http://davegooden.com/2011/05/how-airbnb-became-a-billion-do... HN thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2603844

Given the choice between a world without AirBnB and a few emails to Craigslist users about a better service, most rational people would vote for AirBnB to exist. The ends do justify the means. Just be sure your ends are defensible, and be prepared for blowback if you get too many people clutching their pearls in feigned outrage.

Because AirBnB have cured cancer? Or was it prevented genocide? Or something, like, worthwhile?

Most rational people don't give a flying toss whether Airbnb existed.

It's pretty obvious the ends did not justify the means. They're a reservations website, wake up, sniff reality and stop drinking the koolaid. Is it ok the aggravation they've caused to small business owners and the total lying. And that's ok because they did a few cereal packets once? Because they're 'naughty'?

Wow, lots of hate in this thread. I rented a yacht overnight for valentines day for like $200 on AirBnB and my girlfriend was floored. AirBnB actually is changing how I think about travel, and even "just doing something special".

They are a very innovative company, and I for one would vote for them to exist if it were up to me.

Well, it is not like they caused genocide or cancer.

I won't defend their marketing practices, but I don't give a flying toss if they've made it harder for small businesses. The market changes, old businesses die and new ones are formed. Or are you one of the people who think we should subsidize old businesses so we don't "lose jobs" or whatever?

As for rational people caring wither Airbnb existed, I'm pretty rational and I think it's great. They've enabled a lot of microbusinesses. People who have a spare room can rent it out and make some extra cash. It allows people to travel more, and still make rent. It allows people to rent out space in tough times to make extra cash. It allows people to find cheap places to stay when they can't afford a hotel room.

I think it's done a lot of good. I'm confused where your negativity is directed. Are you just angry at them for spamming Craigslist?

It seems to me that sort of attitude leads to spam and "Tragedy of the commons" scenarios.

If everyone who thought they had "a better service" and were thus justified to send "a few emails to Craigslist users" the utility of Craigslist would be negatively impacted.

On that basis I would think the "rational person" might not find that sort of behaviour acceptable and would vote to preserve the resource.

I think you're thinking about this wrong. It's not "right because its justified" it's excusable because it's minor in the scheme of things.

Imagine everyone is working really long hours for a couple of weeks to get something important done. You don't make it to the gym, miss a yoga class, get less sleep etc., eat junk food and get irritable. You're unpleasant and insulting to some people for a few days. Is that good? No and it should and can be avoided even if you're working long hours. If everyone did it all the time work would suck. But.. we excuse a certain amount of this if it is minor enough, if it is out of character and if it is understandable in some way.

BTW, I'm not trying to express an opinion here, just clarify what I think is a common position.

That's an interesting and objective viewpoint, and I understand completely where you're coming from.

Personally, my sole objection is that they knowingly violated the law for personal gain.

Is that excusable? Pragmatically, yes, but only because we tolerate it.

I would hate to live in that kind of world (even though we do), so I speak out against this behavior.

Didn't I just say this isn't my viewpoint :)

Interestingly, you can hold this position and still speak out against it. Stretching my analogy: If Joanne is being a bitch and you don't know her well you can talk about her behind her back. If you're usually cool you can tell her to get her cranky ass to yoga and watch the fucking lip.

It's not that it isn't wrong or bad. It's just a question of thinking about it socially (the way people, though not necessarily the people of this site, are built to operate) rather than judicially/bureaucratically. Socially we take into account grey area, degrees, mitigating circumstances, and sometimes the voluptuousness of Joanne's buxom. We don't even have to be 100% consistent.

We the people (HN readers, Airbnb sleepers, etc) are not Interpol, we are humans. We don't always have to be completely objective and consistent when deciding how to feel about something. People on this site are smart, but I do have a lot of forehead smack moments when being people becomes such a struggle for some.

I think life is very much like a prisoner's dilemma. Yes, it would suck if everyone did it, but since not everyone does.. you might as well do it for your own personal gain.

It is okay to break rules once in a while.

I agree with what you're saying, though in this instance I think it's more a case of being willing to turn your hand to whatever needs doing and not being precious about whether it's your job or not, rather than the implied ruthlessness of "doing everything it takes".

It's not a bad attitude to have towards most aspects of life really.

Agree with a non technical founder needing to do everything. Also it depends very much on the type of business. Some businesses have complex technical requirements and so, just a technical co-founder may be necessary.

Other times if you are hiring a large technical team (5 or more people) to accomplish what you want to accomplish then the technical co-founder is not as important, and it's more important to hire an awesome team of technical people and have the money raised to do that.

However if you have moderate or complex technical requirements and you are starting the business with 1 or 2 people and no staff, then a technical co-founder makes more sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com