I do believe this would have won.
3,386 karma · joined June 24, 2010
I do believe this would have won.
Edit: that's a generic 'you', in case it's not obvious, not a reference to the parent.
We've all seen this, of course. As an MBA, it makes me chuckle. As an engineer it makes me sad. If there's one mindset that could be stand to be purged from the development world it is that developers are so damn smart.
The insecurity over intellectual capability is so strong in the software engineering profession that it's debilitating. Developers - get over yourselves. There are lots of smart people out there and they don't all look like you. Embrace this fact and you will be freed. Once you recognize that you cannot even define "smart", constructing your identity around being smart loses its luster.
Now, I have no idea if the Spanish sub business runs anything like that, but it surprises me that it apparently doesn't or didn't in this case. It's not like you just let some engineer in the corner calculate the weight and then go build it. This is a systemic fuckup, not a shifted decimal point.
Retail share holders are ignorant, so they don't matter. Big share holders know that there is a time frame that they care about that is as short as they want it to be. They don't care about the long term. The board of directors (in theory) should, but even they are short-timers. Asking them to stop making money in the short term to help the long term is counter to their personal interests. It's just a flaw in the system, and a major argument against going public.
Interestingly, the handful of folks I know who have served as directors for public companies all share certain personality trais: A strong extroversion (in that they seem to care a lot about what others think of them), a tendency towards overconfidence, and an aloof demeanor. Not sure if that's universal, but it's something I've noticed. It probably doesn't help.
Speaking as a business guy, my default position is to be turned off by co-founding with a technical guy unless they have an amazing track record. I like the advice of earning a business co-founder.
I just wish more technical guys realized their code isn't that special, isn't a magic way of printing money and just coming up with the implementation doesn't entitle you to 75% of a two-man venture. It doesn't even really entitle you to an extra 10%.
In the beginning, your job is probably going to be to find a place to host, writing alpha CRUD apps, buying computers, buying food, buying and assembling furniture and generally just making things work. That's all very unglamorous work but, depending on the venture, it's quite likely your (alleged) coding skills will be of very little value (until you've found a market).
I don't think I'm alone (as a business guy) in generally finding technical guys to have an inflated sense of self-importance who often want to treat business people as an exchangeable/replaceable commodity.
This is not a close call.
But business school is a bit of a scam, and the willing victims are the students. They sell glamor and wealth on Wall Street and throughout corporate America. "You'll be making half a mil in 5 years, what's $160k in debt?" Everyone is going to be a master of the universe. Except it doesn't work that way, even if you play by all the rules. Even at Harvard, Stanford, and Penn. Correlation is not causation.
Would I do it again? Hell yeah. But I was fortunate enough to go to a highly ranked public school for a fraction of that. I find it incredibly hard to believe that Stanford is worth 3-4x what I paid at Texas.
BUT... blowing $120k on angel investments seems like a very, very poor substitute for the B School experience. Yes, spend a crap ton of money educating yourself outside of school, but don't piss it away on angel investments. Spend it trying to do something.