Why 99% of Entrepreneurs Fail:  Because they don't do anything - <AUTHOR> http://jessicamah.com/blog/?p=641 <comment><USER2> One of the best quotes from Scott Adams: "the difference between a bad idea and a great idea is that you're the author".

It's so true. Everyone else thinks your startup idea doesn't make any sense. That's not a reason to give up. Listen politely to the feedback. Try to extract the few ounces of truth (your idea surely is not perfect, it can be tweaked to be made even better).

But don't be discouraged by negative feedback. Keep coding. Stop polishing your Powerpoint deck.

<http://fairsoftware.net>: have an idea for a business? Find co-founders!

<comment><USER3> alain94040: I'm not sure the "viral" fairsoftware.net link in each of your comments is against the guidelines of this site but I think you should stop doing that before other people start copying you. If everyone did this the quality of HN would go down and that would be really annoying. It's also unnecessary because if you post enough good comments people will see your link when they click on your userid to read them.

<comment><USER2> Good point. I come from the old age of Usenet signatures, where proper etiquette said 4 lines was appropriate. Except they were displayed at the bottom of people's screens, not inline like threads nowdays (do I sound old enough now :-) I'm really not).

I do have an opinion on signing (using at least one line at the end), because I believe it helps the conversation to know who said what. If all you read were anonymous comments, it would hurt the conversation. When I see the same name again and again in a thread, my brain automatically connects the dots and I follow the conversation better knowing that the same person is responding again, or a new person chimed in, etc.

You could argue that the name of the writer is already mentioned at the top, but somehow I always seem to skip that part and rely on the bottom of a post to know who wrote it. Maybe it's because if I read a message til the end, it means I found it interesting. Only then do I want to see who wrote it. That would explain why I skip names in the header and expect it in the footer... Anyone has read good research on that topic?

<comment><USER4> From the FAQ:

 _Please don't sign comments, especially with your url. They're already signed with your username. If other users want to learn more about you, they can click on it to see your profile._

You're just not in the habit of looking back up at the name when you finish a comment that you like. It's not hard to train yourself to do that.

<comment><USER5> Not that anybody usually cares about meta-conversations around here, but I like the idea of _one-line_ custom tags at the bottom of each comment. Especially since this is a startup board. People should be proud of what they are doing and should be wanting to plug it.

My two cents, fwiw.

<comment><USER4> Even one line is noise. If I'm curious about you, I'll check your profile. (And I do check a lot of profiles.)

<comment><USER5> I respectfully disagree.

Noise is in the eye of the beholder. It seems a little self-serving and belittling to humanity to care about the message more than the messenger.

If I point something out and you comment, it's simple common politeness to allow you to drift off topic for a sentence or so. To care more about noise- to-signal ratio than a simple plug is to take humans out of the mix and turn boards into simple data.

I exaggerate my point for effect, but it still doesn't sit right with me. We're more that data machines for discussion boards.

<comment><USER4> I see it as noise because it's redundant. All posts have a name and a profile associated with them.

Personally, I think you have to _earn_ a reference to your personal or business site. And you can do that by saying interesting things, which makes me curious to find out who you are by clicking your name. Which, again, I often do here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Or more precisely, because they don't do anything users need. There are two ways that happens: by doing nothing, and by doing the wrong things.

<comment><USER7> In addition to that, some (many?) entrepreneurs build something users want and see their apps grow. But, then, they see their friends doing something else that's growing even faster. And, being optimists, decide that they can run two projects at the same time. So they launch a pet project so as not to miss out on that other opportunity. I've done it, and I know a lot of excellent entrepreneurs do it.

The thing is, it's sometimes the right thing to do. My last pet project grew much faster than my main project, and it ended up being my main project. And I'm happy it happened that way. But there is no way to know in advance how it's going to go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> 99% have to fail so that success is more rewarding for the remaining 1%. If everyone is special, no one is.

"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." -- Mark Twain

<comment><USER9> At the time of my comment, my comment's parent has 4 points, so it is not only the author of the parent that I am responding to, but also those who upvoted the parent and those who have expressed similar sentiments here in the past.

First, I think a person has to be a little crazy to spend all his time on a venture with a 99% chance of failure. No woman for example is going to stay in a committed relationship with a man who has a 99% chance of financial failure and poverty, so what do these one-percenters plan to do to get into or stay in a relationship: lie to their partners about a fundamental part of their financial reality? (And I think that most heterosexual men who do not even want to be in a committed relationship with a woman are a little crazy.)

But probably these one-percenters are adults, and have the right to embark on this kind of career, even if I would not want it.

Would the reader however want to be a business partner, employee or even a coworker of one of these one-percenters? I for one would prefer for my business partners, employees and coworkers to look for ways so that as many people as possible enjoy a prosperous life. I would prefer for my business partners, etc, to help to shape their industry and their profession in that direction.

The most valuable things I own are my life, my freedom, my health and my education. Health includes things like enriching recreational activities and a full social life, and in expensive places like the Bay Area, that requires a certain level of income. Good educational environments do not come cheap either. But to maintain my life, my freedom, my health, etc, requires only a middle-class level of income: it does not require wild Netscape-scale personal success. Not that Netscape-scale personal success is _evil_ or _wrong_ , but again the most valuable things a human being owns do not require it.

When I say this, I understand that risk and unequal financial outcomes are a natural and unavoidable part of the efficient organization of the economy. Also, I do not endorse socialistic means for equalizing financial outcomes, in which the government takes income from successful workers against their will and gives it to less successful workers.

But when it can be done without decreasing the efficiency of the economy and by voluntary transactions, I think we should structure our industries and professions and markets and institutions so that an ordinary person willing to work hard can earn a good living with as little risk of lasting poverty as possible. In contrast, it seems to me that a significant fraction of the commentators here _prefer_ winner-take-all contests even when there are alternatives that produce just as much total wealth. I for one will choose not to partner with that fraction of the community.

Let me give an example of a way to help more people earn enough money to maintain and protect the most valuable things a person owns (his life, his health, etc). Founders can increase their odds of success if they have more information on what founders before them did and how successful those choices ended up being. So anything anyone does to share true information about that or encourage others to share true information about that will tend to increase the number of founders who can earn a decent living at this startup game.

<comment><USER10> I can say this as someone who has "failed spectacularly." Until you've tried and gotten a taste, you will never understand why people would even bother when the chance of success is only 1%. I can also say I fully intend to do it again.

As far as support from spouses etc., my wife doesn't like the fact that we owe close to 7 digits right now, but she also understands that to me, this is "living."

<comment><USER9> And again, I am not trying to take away your freedom to live that way. My objection was to the statement that 99% of entrepreneurs have to fail so that the success of the 1% who succeed is sweeter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can agree this is why 99% of "someone with an idea" does not convert the idea into a meaningful business. However, I prefer to qualify the term "entrepreneur" as someone that fully accepts the "1% inspiration, 99% perspiration" rule.

<comment><USER12> I had the same thought, its less the entrepreneurs and more the population as a whole. I do think most people are capable of at least trying to start a company. The biggest obstacle that keeps them from "doing anything" is intimidation (of how hard it is) and comfort in their current routine.

<comment><USER13> Being in the process of launching an own company I can wholeheartly second both of your points. During our recruiting efforts we noticed that most people are mindboggingly risk averse, up to the point of irrationality. In one sentence they'll tell you how they've always wanted to start their own thing and how promising your idea sounds to them - and in the next they cop out because you can't offer them a 3yr contract with full salary and some sort of success guarantee on top...

<comment><USER14> The hiring process is definitely unique.. we often ended up with people who would instead make quirky lifestyle stipulations that were more important to them than money or security. Like being able to work from noon until whenever. Or not wearing shoes, ever. Or bringing their dogs to work.

Oddly enough, because we started in a falling apart mansion the fact that we had a full kitchen and a washer and dryer was enough to convince a bunch of people.

"You mean I can do laundry at work?"

"yep"

"wow!"

<comment><USER13> Well, unfortunately the population of dog-loving barefeet coders does not entirely overlap with the population of rockstar programmers. But nonetheless our main criterions remain quality of code and ability to communicate in a meaningful way (asynchronously if their sleep-cycle requires it).

If someone can deliver both of that then, frankly, he may run around naked all day as far as I am concerned. I have no reason to discriminate dog-loving nudists, as long as that doesn't negatively affect their contribution to our business objectives.

<comment><USER14> Entirely correct. We did not get the best people. It probably cost us more money in the long run. But we were able to ship the product and survive.

It can take years and years to find an amazing team of programmers that's a good fit. After 12 years we have, but in the beginning we just had to ship and get paid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> stop reading hn and get back to work.

<comment><USER16> Or maybe... read hn, learn some new things, then get to work.

<comment><USER17> Stop pretending..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm a type 2... I feel like I don't have the influence, following, or energy required to promote things after launching so I tend to give up and start something new.

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps you need to find the Steve to your Woz?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I suspect that entrepreneurs fail because they don't ask good questions.

Lack of focus is an unexplored question. Lack of motivation is an unexplored question.

Hitting a stinging low after the great initial launch highs are an unexplored question. ("How could I make this process more enjoyable? What did I do wrong that got me here?")

</comment><comment><USER20> I gave a talk today about my past experience, and someone asked me what the key quality to bring to a startup is, and I blathered on about "determination," because that's what popped into my head ... After, I realized that there was a slightly different word that actually captured the experience better. Fear. It's the best motivator of all. Perhaps it's the real reason startups thrive in the environments like the current one - because they have no choice.

</comment><comment><USER21> _yet they lack the capability (and even willpower) needed to see it through_

With enough willpower, you don't need capability.

</comment><comment><USER22> My favorite quote:

"Nothing will work unless you do."

Maya Angelou.

Works on many levels - you have to keep your nose to the grind stone, take ownership of all the problems you have, especially as an entrepreneur.

At the same time take care of yourself, because if you burn yourself out no one can replace you - which is bad for you and your business.

</comment><comment><USER23> I posted something very similar several days ago called "Finding the 2%"[http://www.leveragingideas.com/2009/01/19/find-the-two- perce...](http://www.leveragingideas.com/2009/01/19/find-the-two-percent/)

</comment><comment><USER24> I find it disturbing that the authoress seems to be motivated primarily by money, and does not mention this kind of motivation as the reason for a lot of startup failures.

<comment><USER25> _"authoress"_

Seriously? "author"

<comment><USER24> I just wanted to get my facts and grammar right :-)

Facts: <http://jessicamah.com/blog/?page_id=2>

Grammar: <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoress>

<comment><USER25> A word doesn't become proper by virtue of merely being defined...

For what it's worth, my comment was on a PC bent. Nowadays, "waitress," "stewardess," etc. are frowned upon, and your use of "authoress" needlessly draws intention to the distinction. It's a clumsy word as well, which makes it seem that you find this distinction notable enough to decide against the far, far more common "author."

<comment><AUTHOR> Whether all those words are frowned upon would largely depend on dialect (Queen's, International, American etc.) and local custom. For example, I use waitress, stewardess and actress, but never authoress or manageress.

It's probably quite baffling to someone for whom English is a secondary language.

<comment><USER25> I think that the "ess" should only be added when sexual distinction is being communicated as well. Off the top of my head, I can only think of it coming up for very feminine nouns, such as "temptress" and "mistress." "Waitress" is still doable but discouraged.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're American then?

Waitress is still very much the term in this part of the world.

<comment><USER25> Yep. See, we were overrun by the PC nuts in the 80s, but there are good parts. In the case of "waitress," I agree with them that the elaboration is unnecessary and pointless. So I value some PC when it delivers precision (but the arguments that certain speech is sexist seems far-fetched; "waitress" is not sexist).

<comment><AUTHOR> A problem for the PC nuts, in particular those that maintain words like "waitress" are sexist, is that they're very often hastening the descent to a masculine-neutral, and so are ultimately complicit in preserving the very system they oppose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> pretty much just remember that there is no overnight success, and stick with your idea through thick and thin, no matter what.

Granted...you need to put in some basic goals, i.e. if your startup grows at 1 user a month for a year..its probably time to quit.

<comment><USER27> The problem is, it's tough to distinguish "time to quit" from "giving up too early". In fact, I'm not sure there's always a difference between the two. That's why the rewards are so high for a success.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Entrepreneurs should be opportunists rather than ambitious to succeed.

</comment><comment><USER29> perhaps reason #2: they are all off doing their own thing. get a bunch of them together in the same room, working on the same project. more consolidation people!

</comment><comment><USER30> no comment.

</comment><comment><USER31> The site was so slow to render that I gave up almost immediately.</comment>


The Extraordinary Life of Nikola Tesla - <AUTHOR> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/extraordinary-life-nikola-tesla-180967758/?no-ist <comment><USER2> These days it's fashionable to venerate Tesla and denigrate Edison. Tesla's contributions to AC motors and power are great and beyond dispute. The others, not so much.

For those who like to denigrate Edison by comparison, I challenge to read "Edison" by Josephson and maintain that opinion.

I.e. Tesla transformed AC power, Edison transformed multiple foundational industries.

<comment><USER3> funfact: though Elon Musk has a company named after Tesla, in an interview, he has said Edison is the better role model.

e.g. It's not that Edison invented a light bulb - he created the first power grid. It's like inventing an internet client, and the internet.

<comment><USER2> It's also popular to say Edison did not invent the light bulb. It is correct that he was not the first to invent a glowing wire. Edison's key innovation was the thin, high resistance filament which used high voltage and low current. That design was said to be impossible by all the experts of the time, but it is what made the light bulb practical and useful.

Edison's light bulb was attacked on all fronts in patent court for years, and he beat them all.

He invented the light bulb.

Ironically for Elon Musk, early electric cars mostly used Edison batteries.

<comment><USER4> You're forgetting Joseph Swan:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan#Electric_light](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan#Electric_light)

<comment><USER2> No I didn't. From the article you cited:

"Swan's carbon rod lamp and carbon filament lamp, while functional, were still relatively impractical due to low resistance (needing very expensive thick copper wiring) and short running life."

It also mentions the high current.

As I remarked, Edison's breakthrough was the thin-filament high voltage, low current lamp, which made it practical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have a genuine question about Tesla. I've read some of his speeches/presentations, and he has credited his interest in inductors and electrical fields to, among other things, papers or texts written by William Crookes.

I can't find which texts, though. Does anyone know?

See, the thing about Crookes is, he seems to have veered towards paranormal stuff towards the end of his career and a lot of the literature surrounding him has to do with that. Somewhat ironically, the Crookes Tube was featured in one of H.P. Lovecraft's stories during an attempt to exorcise an eldritch monstrosity of fungal horror.

<comment><USER6> Now I know that there _needs_ to be a survival horror game where Nikola Tesla fights eldritch abominations in Gilded Age New York.

<comment><USER7> Using mathematics... See the Laundry series by Charles Stross.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Of all of the pop culture tributes / references to Tesla, probably my favorite is the band Tesla[1] and their album The Great Radio Controversy[2]. And, of course, the song Edison's Medicine[3] on the Psychotic Supper album.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_(band)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_\(band\))

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Radio_Controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Radio_Controversy)

[3]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2zwBRa0YhA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2zwBRa0YhA)

</comment><comment><USER9> I still think my favorite development in the Tesla saga was when a cartoonist (The Oatmeal) got the Internet and then Elon Musk to help him save Wardenclyff from the dozers.

<comment><USER10> I live only a few miles from the site and drive past it regularly. It's been interesting to watch the progress from an abandoned and overgrown property entirely unrecognizable as the site of anything of interest morphing into a recognition of Tesla. It's not there yet, but it's a work n progress and definitely easy to see the progress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Something most authors don't mention, but I've read in the book by Andy Kessler: (1):

Apparently Tesla not only invented the first electronical wirelessly controlled battery powered device, he also invented the first electronic ligical circuit then, the author claimed, all in year 1899.

1) "How We Got Here: A Slightly Irreverent History of Technology and Markets"

<comment><USER12> For more information on that 'device', look hard at the tech used in his 1898 demo of his remote-controlled boat at an expo in Madison Square Garden. The boat and remote combined several amazing innovations. Technically it's on the same level as Englebart's demo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Some of you here must surely be familiar -- one of the most engaging biographies of Tesla was written by Margaret Cheney: _Man Out of Time_ :

[http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Tesla/Margaret- Cheney/...](http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Tesla/Margaret- Cheney/9780743215367)

(The title might sound a tad clickbait-y, but deservedly so. Also remember that it was written in 2001, about six years before HN was created.)

</comment><comment><USER14> There is a factual inaccuracy in the article. Although an ethnic Serb, Tesla was not born in Serbia. He was born in Croatia that was at that time part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

<comment><USER15> Why does it always have to be someone that involves politics into this? Tesla during his life said he is of Serbian origin and thinks of himself as a Serbian, even though he was born in Croatia. Don't steer it up in here too, I'd like HN to remain what it is.

<comment><USER11> In fact, born in the territories that are currently inside of the borders of the country now called Croatia which at that time didn't exist as the independent country, especially not there. As far as I understand, he was born in the "Military Frontier" lands of Austro-Hungarian monarchy (Wikipedia: "Born 10 July 1856 Smiljan, Austrian Empire"), and went to Polytechnic school in Graz, today Austria:

[https://teslauniverse.com/nikola- tesla/timeline/1875-tesla-a...](https://teslauniverse.com/nikola- tesla/timeline/1875-tesla-attends-college-graz)

Present Croatia exists for less than 30 years, it's important not being anachronistic in historical statements. At the time Tesla was born his birthplace was not even administratively "Croatia":

"By the Basic Law of the Frontier from 1850, the administration of Military Frontier was split and the land started to look like a state. The Main Command had its headquarters in Zagreb, but remained directly subordinate to the Ministry of War in Vienna."

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Frontier](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Frontier)

<comment><USER16> Even if Croatia did not exist at the time of Tesla's birth, it does not change the fact that he was not born in Serbia.

<comment><USER11> I never claimed he was. 'trodemode's claim was Croatia, and that's what isn't historical.

However if you'd actually want to visit Tesla's birthplace, you would need to buy a ticket to Croatia. The place is in Croatia _now._

Ethnically Tesla was a Serb, his birthplace was then Austrian Military Frontier and now in Croatia, that's the background to different attempts of ignoring the history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Perhaps one of my favorite people of all time, you can find some decent documentaries on YouTube as well. It's hard to sum him up in an article so if you're interested in any of the things he accomplished, check out some videos and books about him, truly an extraordinary man that had so much taken from him with no credit given.

<comment><USER18> I recommend his autobiography, _My Inventions,_ it is very excellent. Apart from everything else, the man has a way with words.

<comment><USER19> A short title, freely available here: * [http://www.teslasautobiography.com](http://www.teslasautobiography.com) * [https://freeditorial.com/en/books/my-inventions-- 2](https://freeditorial.com/en/books/my-inventions--2)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Tesla had many great ideas, but was lazy and had a bad habit of disappearing off down on a tangent that his investors had not been told about, and had not agreed to invest in.

I recommend this book ([https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/494.Wizard](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/494.Wizard)) to anyone who wants to know the full story.

<comment><USER21> I read that book as well... one of the tangents was (paraphrasing from memory) when he secured financing from J. P. Morgan for a proof-of-concept wireless transmission tower (the Wardenclyffe tower). He then dramatically scaled up his plans without consulting with Morgan and tried to motivate this by picturing the project as a reflection of Morgans position in society -- surely you can see that only the best will do! After running out of money, he kept asking J. P. Morgan for more money for the rest of Morgan's life... and a large part of Morgan's sons life!

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> BBC radio programme about Tesla: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09kplfv](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09kplfv)

</comment><comment><USER23> His Colorado Springs lab notes are a good read. One of the things he struggled with was RF detection (rectification). Don't think he figured it out, but tried many experiments.

</comment><comment> s-c-h How do you explain the boom of the scientist/inventor/businessman profile in that period? Are there any references on the subject?

</comment><comment><USER24> Too bad he died alone and poor. Would he have given up some if his intellectual ability for companionship?

<comment><USER25> No, he would not. As mentioned in the article he was reputedly celibate by choice for this reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> amazing thanks for sharing

</comment><comment><USER27> Never fails to make me quite emotional reading about his story.

</comment><comment><USER28> _the magnetic field strength of MRI scanners is measured in Teslas_

Interesting

<comment><USER28> May I ask why this comment gets downvoted... without getting downvoted?

<comment><USER29> Speculation, but likely because it doesn't add much to the conversation. For questions like this, it's useful to review other comments that have been downvoted and appraise them with the guidelines at hand. It won't be perfect, as members may downvote for any number of reasons not mentioned in the guidelines (or for no reason at all).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Enough with Tesla already. Jesus Christ.

</comment><comment><USER31> My tinfoil hat tells me that either neither Tesla nor Einstein were humans, OR both were in some sort of communication with aliens.

I know on its face it sounds like horseshit... but with over 100 billion people ever lived on earth... how come we have so few geniuses that truly push the whole human kind forward 10x faster than all people combined thru a previous ten centuries?

Even more - if we assume its just a coincident or that they had such good DNA, or their parents were geniuses before... then how come it doesn't happen again? How come we don't have such huge brains like Tesla or Einstein today? Sure there are many super smart humans among us... but not a single one sticks out like Tesla or Einstein did in their old days.

<comment><USER32> There are probably many geniouses that came and went through the ages, the problem is that of "financial stability / partnerships". If I'm too busy making Widgets for a company in order to feed my family, I dont have any energy left to do Creative stuff. Isaac Newton was wealthy so could devote time to pursue the sciences, the rest of us are preparing TPG reports for the bean counters. The person who can cure cancer is too busy taking his kids to KungFu/Soccer practice, hogged by a demanding socialite wife who doesn't allow him to steal time from domestic chores.

<comment><USER18> The clear solutions to these problems then, are to become wealthy, and remain celibate.

<comment><USER33> MGTOW [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Going_Their_Own_Way](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Going_Their_Own_Way)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Unicorns Hunt for Talent Among Silicon Valley's Giants - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/19/technology/unicorns-hunt-for-talent-among-silicon-valleys-giants.html

<comment><USER2> Great gig if you can get in.</comment>


Microsoft's Office365 Limits Emails to 500 Recipients a Day - Suraj-Sun http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/small-businesses-beware-the-office-365-fine-print/4151

<comment><AUTHOR> While it might seem low, this isn't really news. Google Apps has a per account daily sending limit of... 500 recipients: [https://www.google.com/support/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ans...](https://www.google.com/support/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=166852)

And it's been that way for at least three years (I had written some code in 2008 to use multiple Apps accounts to send notifications for a web app in round-robin fashion)

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, the docs at Google are confusing too. They make a distinction between sending limits for Google Apps (500/account/day) and Google Apps for Business (3000/account/day). I've used Google Apps (for Business?) for several years and don't know the distinction between the two.

<comment><USER2> Plain Google Apps is the free version, Google Apps for Business is the pay for version.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is to counter spam and malware, done the Microsoft way (like Outlook not being able to receive attachments with certain filename extensions):

 _"Michael Atalla, Director of product management for Exchange Server and Exchange Online, confirmed the limitation [...], arguing that it's a necessary anti-spam measure:

'Every online service provider must limit and constrain its service based on limitations such as the amount of disk space currently in its datacenters or bandwidth currently available and also enforce behavioral thresholds which prevent inappropriate use of the service by malicious users or criminals. This is true for any form of web-based service.

In the world of email, one of the thresholds that must be enforced is the amount of email that is sent through the system by any one user or organization in order to combat spam, mass-mailing worms & viruses.'"_

</comment><comment><USER4> "Neither should consultants who recommend and deploy a service [be penalised]"

In this case I'd suggest they're being penalised for not reading the limitations before recommending a product to their client, and not double- checking that the service met the client's requirements.

<comment><USER5> I'll second this, it's the kind of thing that you should be looking at, or asking a representative of the company who's selling the software. I'm glad this post appeared, my company was contemplating Office365 as an EDMS with extra features... but if we can't send emails to more than 500 people (or even 1500) per day, it's utterly worthless to us. Sent it to my boss, now he'll think I did some deep research for him :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Typical MS BS...like how they artificially limit the number of Tcp connections unless you buy the server editions.

Or like how you bought that vista home basic version of windows and it didn't even have administrator tools enabled.</comment>


Tim O'Reilly makes a case for why venture capital is starting to do more harm - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/26/tim-oreilly-makes-a-persuasive-case-for-why-venture-capital-is-starting-to-do-more-harm-than-good/ <comment><USER2> Not sure if it's completely related, but my dad will sometimes talk about the "Yuppie Time" during the 80's, when he tried to get funding for some rather big IT projects. There would be well connected "yuppies" getting funding and loans for just about anything, so they could make short-term investments, and then run away with the profits as quick as they could. Most of these guys weren't interesting in building something lasting, though, so it was important to quickly identify them, and then just turn them down no matter how much funding they promised. Not easy, as these guys would seem pretty flush with cash. Seemingly. But oftentimes it would leave companies, and also employees, ruined after such a run. The hope was to make a lasting impression on the communities they wanted to start up within, by giving people something tangible and safe to build up long-term. However yuppies would offer anything but, so while you could sit in a nice and comfy office on the one day, you'd be out on the street on the next. Think Wolf of Wall Street. Hardly a secure environment to stake your future in. And indeed, eventually it did go south for a lot of folks by the crash of '87, and also the aftermath in '89.

<comment><USER3> All sorts of these shenanigans continue in various forms. I know of one company that received an absurd valuation and funding amount from a Russian oligarch to attack a very difficult and established industry, then got acquired 2 years later by a different Russian company for a large return. They hadn't built anything, they had leased a large office with open windows on the first floor near mine, and every time I walked by they looked dead inside.

Easy answer - washed a large amount of money for the oligarch after the acquisition (clean transfer from Russian acquirer to oligarch plus its advantageous tax treatment).

<comment><USER4> What's that? You mean they took gambling addicts and gave them control of humanities efforts at scale? It's all gone wrong? Shocking! Why, a minority of global power brokers have NEVER, in the history of humanity, used their sway over the masses to abuse their trust.

Most financial crimes are still just plain old "paper cons". They lie on the paperwork.

At least in the US, regulatory agencies are so underfunded or had their mission altered such that "paper cons" happen constantly.

Panama Papers, many of Trumps tax dodge schemes (among others, calling him out because of viz, all those guys "do it") etc

All very obvious, well known financial schemes.

Basically the origin of the word privilege comes from Latin "privy lege" ... "privileged by the law".

Humanity is still ruled by ruthless tribalists looking to conquer the globe.

Ain't nothing changed about it except the literal "who", and sound forms and visual glyphs used to describe. We use a lot less Latin and romantic notions of higher powers in the sky, but still kowtow to hierarchy based upon scientific bullshit, convincing people "THESE annotations of the numbers are it, boy howdy! We def got IT right this generation! Sorry about rocket cars, but our finance scheme numbers keep going up so we did it!"

Still biologically motivated to the same ends.

<comment><USER5> Could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. [https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...](https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=by:dang%20community%20identity)

Also, please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. That's in the site guidelines also.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Putting aside the important issues of diversity and inclusiveness, there's some really strong criticism of the business ethics and financial soundness of the VC model.

 _As I said, I've been really disillusioned with Silicon Valley investing for a long time. It reminds me of Wall Street going up to 2008. The idea was, 'As long as someone wants to buy this [collateralized debt obligation], we're good.' Nobody is thinking about: Is this a good product?

So many things that VCs have created are really financial instruments like those CDOs. They aren't really thinking about whether this is a company that could survive on revenue from its customers. Deals are designed entirely around an exit. As long as you can get some sucker to take them, [you're good]. So many acquisitions fail, for example, but the VCs are happy because — guess what? — they got their exit._

<comment><USER7> Looking at some prominent examples in the last 1-2 years (Uber, WeWork, Lyft) and the recent batch of S-1 filings, I indeed see a lot of companies still operating at a loss. The analogy to CDOs and finding a bigger sucker starts ringing true. So far, the bigger suckers were Softbank and public markets. It would be interesting to see what happens going forward.

<comment><USER8> To that point on public markets: who on Earth is buying the equities of a Zynga or a SurveyMonkey? (no offense to any current or former employees)

I get that speculators exist, but I see more and more the public listing of IT startups as "siphoning" passive index funds as part of a necessary diversified portfolio strategy - this is how VCs are exiting. I haven't done the research, but this is merely the extension of principally why VC exists: the statistical inference of putting X% (typically less than 3) into high risk investments from 10 and 11 figure funds.

<comment><USER9> Zynga made a profit in 2019. They appear to be a sustainable business which can keep operating at roughly break-even levels while hoping for another big breakout hit that makes a lot of money. Not a great investment, but certainly not a money pit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This interview resonantes with something I have been thinking for a while.

Essentially the whole VC fueled hypescaling in a race to become the next unicorn especially in the "sharing economy" seems like a giant pyramid scheme. Like it's all about scaling so the value increases so that in the next round the VC of that previous round can cash in on the next VCs who hope to do the same thing in the next and so on, with the end goal of finding gullible regular investors once it comes to the IPO. All that without a sustainable business model, look at all the bike hire companies a couple of years ago, the scooter companies now etc.. Even Uber might never be profitable.

All that is done on the back of society leaving burned soil in the wake. And yes it's an instrument for the wealthy, because they have the means to be among the early investors.

<comment><USER11> I keep coming back to Block Buster. Their model was borrow money to open stores and drive smaller mom and pop rental places out of business. I'm not sure but I think when you add everything up they never made a positive return doing that. They just ended up leaving banks holding the bag when they went bankrupt.

Lot of VC unicorns feel like that times 100.

<comment><USER12> What? Blockbuster operated under a franchise model. They didn't borrow money to open stores—it was local "mom and pops" doing that.

<comment><USER13> > Blockbuster operated under a franchise model.

Blockbuster had franchises but for most of it's dominant phase also had a large number of corporate stores (some of which originated with one of the several competing chains that it bought outright.)

<comment><USER11> I could misremember but that's what I remembered seeing. They took on debt to expand but never reaped enough monopoly benefits to pay of the rolling short term debt they accrued.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > It's part of the structural inequality in our society, where we're building > businesses that are optimized for their financial return rather than their > return to society.

Isn't this the whole problem? If people cared about society more than money it wouldn't be a problem to invest or take investment money, because you'd all be working toward the same goal of maximizing returns to "society". The problem is greed and selfish pursuit of wealth by certain kinds of people who see that as a worthwhile purpose for their life.

<comment><USER15> Money is the worst proxy for optimising returns for the society. Lemme know if you have anything better.

Greed and selfish pursuit leads to wealth creation

<comment><USER16> > Money is the worst proxy for optimising returns for the society.

Free markets have done far more for society than any other system that's been tried.

<comment><USER17> I'd say social democracy has done more.

It's easy to tally up the greatness of the free market when you redefinento boundaries of society to exclude the huge negative costs imposed on slaves and laborers.

<comment><USER16> Slavery is not a free market system.

<comment><USER18> Um... I agree the word "free" is misleading but once you're in a legal system that condones slavery then of course it would be a free market. I'm having a hard time imagining the slave trade arising without a market much more free than the people forced through it.

Markets are amoral. That's why we shouldn't rely on them to solve social problems.

<comment><USER16> A free market is one where transactions take place absent fraud or force.

Slavery doesn't remotely qualify.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I am reminded of a quote from _The Innovator 's Solution_ about how to build a spinoff in a disruptive industry:

 _Dumb money is impatient for growth and patient for profit. Smart money is impatient for profit and patient for growth._

That book has a lot to say about the dynamics of why this is so. But the lesson is worth thinking about. If you want sustainable returns, focus on being profitable and let growth take care of itself.

However Venture Capital has a fundamental problem that leads to their being "dumb". It is in the interests of the people running the fund to get as much money in the fund as possible (so that they can get the management fees). But then they need to invest too much money in startups. Which forces those startups to search for big enough business opportunities to justify the investment. And if along the way they happen to find a smaller opportunity, they can't pursue it. Therefore they have to look for growth, growth, growth.

</comment><comment><USER20> Tim's thoughts dovetail nicely with the Mathbabe "Microfinance is mostly a scam" story also on the front page at the moment. ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23662482](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23662482))

Technological change always causes collateral damage, and, having been in the business for 25+ years, I can't say people were previously more tuned into the negative consequences of our creations in 1994. With every passing day, however, our power to quickly and sweepingly change the structure of physical and social reality grows, and too many investors give their ethical and moral obligations no more thought than an eight year-old does while burning ants with a magnifying glass.

There's a place for thinking about the world through a spreadsheet, but before pouring tens of billions of dollars into science experiments on human civilization, as a professional and a citizen and a human, you have an obligation to pause and look around before pulling the trigger on a deal.

Taking an example from some time ago, I believe Groupon was a singularly ill- conceived and pernicious business akin to payday lending. And perhaps there's a place for payday lending (or microfinance) but the ability to wave your hands and exclaim "(fin)tech start-up!" allows you to avoid the reputational damage usually associated with working in such milieus.

</comment><comment><USER21> We should all learn and accept that VC funding and bootstrapping are not the only two options. Of course VC is bad for some founders and business models. That does not make it bad in general.

<comment><USER22> What are the other options?

<comment><USER23> ICO, crowdfunding, loans, patronage, government's backing, etc.

<comment><USER24> >government's backing >ICO

For those of us who aren't Musk, Thiel, or Vitalik, there's only loans and patronage and crowdfunding then :)

<comment><USER25> >>government's backing >For those of us who aren't Musk, Thiel, or Vitalik, there's only loans and patronage and crowdfunding then :)

The US SBIR program provides up to $1.7MM per project over 2.5 years to small businesses or startups. It's a pain in the ass process that takes forever, but hundreds of start ups get funded this way every year, and it costs literally nothing to apply other than you time.

sbir.gov

<comment><USER24> Kindly find me one startup that has gone on to have a successful exit that has publicly stated "We took funding from US SBIR and it really made a difference"

Additionally by government's backing, I didn't mean to say loans, I meant to imply "the government are our customers"

<comment><USER26> "This funding allowed us to pursue several innovative programs that otherwise would not have been possible" - Irwin Jacobs, founder of Qualcomm in testimony to the US senate.

The government is good at a lot of things, it is NOT good at publicizing it's own success. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't there.

<comment><USER27> Qualcomm is also nowhere near a startup or a fledgling SMB

<comment><USER26> They were in 1987 when SBIR gave them their first grant [0]. That's sort of the point, parent comment asked for an example of a company that exited with SBIR help, and I gave him a wildly successful one.

[0] [https://www.sbir.gov/node/285190](https://www.sbir.gov/node/285190)

<comment><USER24> That is a very interesting example. Thank you for providing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Often startups are being hyped that show exponential growth. There is even books "The age for exponential" but I hypothesize some may have gotten the exponential curve wrong which has impact for growth. Ie I argue that growth may follow mathematical logistic curves/sigmoid s curves and not necessarily exponential hyper growth. Ie there is not an ifinit number of customers there is natural limits to growth. Nor is there infinite number of energy for example. This put some limit on growth which may shape on logistic curves. Has there been research on which types of exponential curves some startups grow with? I think it's sound that there is demand from investors with income revenue generation.

It kind of matters which of these curves it is or other curve for that matter. And while you are in the middle of a logistic curve growth it can be confused for exponential curve. I recently confused these curves in another topic.

Logistic curve [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function)

Exponential curve [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth)

</comment><comment><USER29> I wonder why TechCrunch never seems to work on mobile. Every single time, every single article.

"An error occurred with this part of the page, sorry for the inconvenience."

<comment><USER21> Works fine in Safari on an iPhone 7.

Are you running any kind of ad or script blocking?

<comment><USER29> Ah yeah I have iOS ad blocker turned on.

<comment><USER30> Works with Wipr content blocker for me.

<comment><USER29> Sounds like maybe Wipr is not blocking as aggressively.

<comment><USER31> Or maybe it is blocking more aggressively. The site works fine for me even with both uBO and Firefox's tracking protection enabled

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This post by Tyler Tringas of Earnest Capital is really relevant here: [https://tylertringas.com/the-entrepreneurs-new-path-of- maxim...](https://tylertringas.com/the-entrepreneurs-new-path-of-maximum- optionality/)

</comment><comment><USER33> VC is fundamentally a power/money alliance which exists to further the allies' interests. Capitalism ideology says that it turns out that this is fairly optimal for consumers, given competitive forces to keep it checked and balanced. But this balance is only healthy to the extent that the homeostasis can be maintained. Unconstrained growth (prioritized above all else and with disregard for externalities) is less like homeostasis and more like cancer ("Wall Street: As long as someone wants to buy this [collateralized debt obligation], we're good.")

<comment><USER34> ...and it's pretty ironic that this comment is written in a social media website directly funded by a VC (Y Combinator)

<comment><USER35> Y/C does the seed rounds and I think they started doing series A - not really a VC, but I get your point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> He's not saying venture capital is starting to do more harm, he's addressing where and how venture capital is being expended. He actually has a good point regarding funding of small to medium sized business with strong business models that emphasize being cash flow positive. Venture capital cannot do harm, most people don't know this but small businesses need the protection via social connections that a venture capital provides. If you don't believe that try running an independent small business and see how exhausting it is when you run into problems and don't have the backing of a VC. I grew up with people who did this and they get burned out when they don't have a larger investor who is connected enough to solve what seem like small problems. Everyone thinks they are better off being completely independent as a small business, that is always a bad idea.

There are certain types of businesses that are difficult to grow due to either legal hurdles or local protectionist tactics, I've seen this growing up in different states. If you start a business in the wrong place and don't have the right connections your business is never going to succeed, it doesn't matter what your business model is. In certain states they simply do not want large multi-national corporations, interstate corporations or franchises. If you succeed on a small scale and decide to expand you're going to run into all kinds of problems because people are going to come out of the woodwork trying to slow down your expansion (yes, this is a real thing it caught me off guard when I first found out there are people who do this).

There are also some types of businesses (particularly in the financial industry) that when implemented on a large scale are a nightmare to understand because there are so many rules and regulations. No one has a clue what is happening and it is easier to have hundreds of medium sized businesses with narrow focus that anyone can understand easily. Funding these types of businesses because everyone wants some sort of large IPO just makes the problem worse.

<comment><USER37> Most VC backed businesses fail, and less obvious, changing an operational model (= company dna) into a VC-optimized one instead of a sustainable revenue optimized one puts a company on that failure path. It is not the capital, but the associated changes for the pursuit of the next round, and dangers of not hitting it. He is pushing back against the hits based business that burns out otherwise good companies, and Bryce is focusing on alternative funding strategies for companies so they can succeed without mega-succeeding.

It's pretty non-obvious. Eg, a founder yesterday in my area cited a ~$50M exit as a success example for what he is doing. Except to O'Reillys point, it may only be a success for a couple of investors, and possibly an income loss for most of the team. They looked good -- raised $2M, $10M, $23M, grew to 50-100 employees, sold for $50M after 5-9yr, helped Global 2000s and govs tackle some hard problems, probably had revenue around $5M+yr, and are now a reasonable part of BigCo's product portfolio for much more $. AND YET... if either the $10M or $23M have a 2x participation, only the VCs really made money (and less than their model needs, so a miss!), and only 0-$5M left to split with the 50+ employees who took years of reduced salary. That's the financial instrument stuff going on. On the leadership side, the hiring was fueled by funding, always more then operating revenue (otherwise no VC needed), so needed the next round or otherwise layoffs and a death spiral. (Only a few % of funded startups can choose to slow growth and switch to sustainable revenue.)

There are reasons to do today's model, but a lot of nuance, and from a creator's / equitibilty perspective, fundamental room for improvement. Glossing over that is no good.

<comment><USER38> This will be a growing model in the next decade and is imo much more sustainable for founders because the core business model isn't torn apart and it's easier to sell to $MED_CO or $BIG_CO as the exit.

Build a small team, grow to $20-75m valuation then ditch to a bigger co. Easier to pitch this to some of the less unicorn-y VCs like Arrowbridge, etc. I like to call it the bluebird strategy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Love it, smart cookie. Like every good reporter nowadays, the interviewer made it about racism right off the bat. Oreilly doesn't bat an eye, genuflects to the racism god and make his point about the fundamental differences between the ventures within the good think context. It's the new public relations dexterity.

</comment><comment><USER40> Replace "starting to do" with "does".

</comment><comment> globular-toast The stock market was invented for the purpose of raising initial capital for companies that need it before they can begin trading. Initially this was mainly railways. But now the stock market is rarely used for that (is it ever?) but rather for initial private investors to cash out.

I sometimes wonder if private investment should be illegal. It's completely unfair that billionaires are able to invest early in radical new companies but the general public are not.

<comment><USER41> There is a special type of entity that can raise money for acquiring other profitable businesses as well, they are called "special purpose acquisition companies" (SPACs). You can basically raise money out of thin air only by only using your reputation and your desire to invest in other companies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> One practice that seems relevant is when a large company buys a smaller product which many users depend on, then after a year or two proceeds to kill the product with poor or no replacement options. Some examples: [https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/](https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/)

This seems like a clear-cut case of market failure since it would even be better for society for the company to die and their product to be open- sourced. The fact that VCs focus on exit instead of building a sustainable business seems to at least contribute to this phenomenon.

</comment><comment><USER43> This is old news.

The reason nothing has changed is because LPs prefer their money goes to the bros.

</comment><comment><USER44> I think it's always good to be doing something unfashionable in investment because that market is under served (so you get a better deal) and it can only become more fashionable (so you're ahead of the curve).

At the same time, we shouldn't pretend this is novel. People have invested in Idaho (or Austin or wherever the fuck) before. Following a bit about how Silicon Valley just makes financial instruments for the rich with how you've made a financial instrument for people with 6 figures is sort of blind too.

I hope this guy does some good and makes a profit but at best he's just doing angle investing outside Silicon Valley...

<comment><USER17> Vulgar language makes your comment hard to read.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best Health Insurance option for founders before you get funding - <AUTHOR>

Hello, I live in the Bay area and was wondering about what health insurance options are available for entrepreneurs. Any suggestions / pointers would be greatly appreciated. <comment><USER2> This depends a lot on whether or not you have pre-existing conditions. If you have none and are young (I assume you are), then you can shop individual plans from the major providers and should be able to get one at a reasonable cost. If you have any conditions, these could either price you out or make you completely uninsurable, in which case you must wait until January when individual plans will become available to everyone at reasonable prices regardless of pre-existing conditions.

</comment><comment><USER3> When my co-founder and I were the only full-time folks at our startup, we subscribed to individual insurance plans with Blue Shield of California. We had some high deductible plans so we were covered in case of a major accident but had to pay our own way for everything else. I think it costed about $100 per person per month, which seemed like a steal. Fortunately, we did not end up incurring any major medical expenses while on that plan.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, that $100/month rate for healthy young males is going bye-bye. I'd guess equivalent coverage would be $250+ once Obamacare kicks in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Move to a country that provides it.

I'm not speaking _completely_ in jest.

</comment><comment><USER6> www.zenefits.com is the easiest way to get set up with insurance here. They're free and will recommend the best few options based on your setup.</comment>