The hacked Sony emails show how Silicon Valley dealmaking really works | Hacker News Reader

The hacked Sony emails show how Silicon Valley dealmaking really works

qz.com

72 pointsprostoalex42 comments

Evan Spiegel is clearly smart but it's weird to hail him as some visionary when someone else came up with the concept and someone else coded the app.

When an app takes off like that, is it even possible to fail running the company? You get funding, all types of input from experts and all you need to do is guide the rocket you are attached to.

I don't know anything about Spiegel, but have you ever tried to guide a rocket you are attached to? I can't imagine it's all that easy.

It's kind of like riding a cat and trying to tell him where to go. He either ends up stopping to clean his bollocks or he brings you into the litter box.

That's a big cat.

As a metaphor, it will get you to outerspace but you may miss your target. You don't actually need to guide it, there's so much thrust/traction that you'd have to be super talented and purposely trying to sabotage it for it to fail.

That being said, Snapchat has made some incredibly good decisions, new products and so forth.

Do you have a link for that? Wikipedia has Spiegel listed as a developer (but that's unreferenced too).

See Digg for a case study on how bad execution post launch during iterative stages can crush a business.

No app just takes off like that. Even so, you have to deal with the challenges associated with it.

I'm a huge cynic when it comes to Snapchat and in no way agree with it's valuation, but they've made some pretty big moves and Evan has shown to be more than competent.

I see nothing shocking or even interesting here. Yes, people who know each other communicate with one another?

> In one thread last April, Lynton asks Costolo for a favor: Can he help get his wife’s news website’s Twitter handle, @LASchoolReport, verified? Costolo replies the same day: “I will have this looked at today and get it taken care of. Stay tuned!”

> Twitter’s policy for verifying accounts has frustrated many, so this isn’t an outrageous request. But it appears even a line directly to the top doesn’t always work. LA School Report, which covers the Los Angeles education universe in impressive detail, remains unverified.

rah!

I have mixed feelings about this article.

In one hand, this is a good thing that journalists are investigating leaks. This is a lot of data, and regular citizen can not take the time for analyzing it all. That's quite what we expect from a journalist doing a proper job.

On the other hand, not just any data does yield newsworthy information. I know it's sad to have spent that many time without finding anything of interest, but after reading this article, I have a strange feeling of voyeurism without having learn anything that would be deemed "of public interest".

It ain't what you know, it's who you know.

This is very normal and how most business works.

Most business people don't claim to be uber-smart and visionary. They just try to do their jobs like everyone else. Do you think the CEO of McDonalds expects anyone to believe that he's some prodigy who's "transforming the world of hamburgers"?

Silicon Valley created its own pedestal of "meritocracy" so when we find out that it's no more meritocratic than any other business-- and, in fact, often less so-- the black eye is deserved.

It may be normal and a common practice, but none of that implies that such practices should be seen as "normal" or used at all. Ethics cannot be derived from argumentum ad antiquitatem or argumentum ad populum.

It's just human nature and I seriously doubt it will ever change. Business is usually built on a relationship of trust, so of course if you know someone you will get better treatment than if you are a stranger.

A good example is a new startup giving an executive a free account to try to get their interest. According to you, it's unethical, but it actually helps small companies compete.

The problem is that "normal" has two meanings:

1) common

2) according to social norms

Neither of which are actually the same as ethics.

I'll make a slightly stronger argument though. You should do business with those you trust. There is no rigorous rational way to determine someone's trustworthiness, so you must get to know them and see how they respond to situations and ultimately rely on your intuition for making decisions.

I thought it was all about meritocracy now.

When conducting business merit is determined by efficacy which is almost certainly enhanced by familiarity.

Can we all just agree that while individual technology choices may be decided according to some figure of merit, business is a messy multi-biased thing and move on?

Or a little more precisely, who knows you.

A parochial old boys (and girls) club? You don't say?!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com