Hacker News Reader

Comment by iforgotpassword | Hacker News Reader

Why does everything ultimately have to get sold to big greedy corps? OK the answer is probably simply money as it always is. I guess I just don't want to understand, when it comes to products where it is safe to assume they were a labor of love, born out of passion. You don't build Bandcamp to make money, you build it because you love music.

View on HN

Friend of a friend built and ran a very successful restaurant for a decade give or take. Staff was treated and paid well and everyone was happy. Eventually they sold the place because they just didn't want to run it any more and the new owners drove it to shit in all the ways you would expect. They felt bad but what else were they suppose to do if they just didn't want to run it any more? Sometimes the answer isn't money, sometimes the answer is the owner is just tired and wants out.

That answer is still basically money, though. Did they consider selling it to an employee or group of employees? Did they consider giving it to an employee or group of employees?

And even if none of those happened, if the new owners ran it to shit. . . was that because those new owners were in it for the money? If so, that's still money. It's certainly possible to imagine a situation where everyone (old owners, employees, customers) thought that the new owners would carry the torch well but they didn't, and I agree that's an unfortunate and largely unavoidable possibility. But I feel like it's more likely the causal chain leads to someone trying to make more money instead of doing a better job at a better thing.

The best option may be to sell the business to one or more of the employees. Of course this is contingent on you paying your employees well enough for this to be viable, as well as your employees believing in the business, but I've seen it work well once before. A diner near me was sold to a waitress who worked there for 20 years, who's now been running it successfully for about 10 years. Obviously she knew the business inside and out, understood the customers and the business side as well.

If the plan was literally just "leave the role" they could just pick a capable successor and hand it off. Or set up a co-op (or some other non-faceless-investment-firm ownership/operation structure) and sell to that, if at a lower price than they'd get from someone who plans to "drive it to shit in all the ways you would expect".

But if the owner's retirement plan is to sell it at the "drive it to shit" price, isn't that just money?

You say that like it is easy. Co-ops can't afford to buy you out, Capable successors aren't obvious.

Humans don't have futuresight.

Eventually idealists get tired of eating dog food or want to retire

Not that you’re using it this way, but I find it incredibly disheartening that the HN crowd almost uses “idealist” like a pejorative. It was pretty rampant during the openAI stuff, where the majority opinion seemed to be bemoaning the “idealists won.”

You can stick to your ideals while still making money. You can even make really good money without selling your soul. You just cant make “all the money” without being evil.

I don't see idealist as a pejorative, but I think a lot of people take a critical all or nothing approach to idealists.

If you're not staving, you're a sellout.

> Why does everything ultimately have to get sold to big greedy corps?

Because they're the ones that have ties to banks and therefore access to infinite capital, which they can fundamentally print out of thin air and you can't.

The real tragedy was the original founders deciding to unnecessarily sell out to Epic. A company like Epic cutting an acquisition like a line item on a balance sheet is not a surprise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com