Your answer is based entirely on the premise that working for a startup boils down to killing yourself for the chance to get rich, which couldn't be further from the truth.
The "rich people" who do startups do it because they love building things that solve big problems, the work hours and payouts are, if they're lucky, just a byproduct.
Sure, I'm 24 and I have basically nothing to lose, but really I have no choice - I have to build things. I can't deal with just performing maintenance.
And even if you are ok with just performing maintenance, working in a small team is simply more fun than working at a larger one.
Seriously, reflect more on this. Writing off startups because they're "in a business of greed" is a straw man at best.
I'm working at a small company doing some incredibly cool "building" stuff, and not in maintenance at all - and I get a steady paycheck and good benefits. There doesn't need to be this dichotomy. There are tons of us out there who work 9-5, enjoy life, don't kill ourselves, yet get to build incredibly cool things with small teams of cool people.
Really, the only downside of my job compared to a startup is that I don't have the potential payout of $[millions], and somehow I'm okay with that. The quality of my life is incredibly high, I set my own hours, and yet because we're not busting our ass just to survive I get to stop and smell the roses. It's pretty cool.
Possibly its a bit strongly worded because he's responding to someone who names start up founders as "punk kids" with "nothing to lose", then declares that he's not doing a startup because he's found things that are more important.
Or course I'd much rather receive my $2MM+ over the course of a couple years building a company rather than over 40 years of letting a boss or HR decide my pay.
And you bet when I'm done I'll be investing in even more start-ups. I love helping people with dreams in the tech industry.
I want startup life because I want to own my own company from the ground up.
I would love to set my own hours at a normal company. But how rare is that? Where do you work that you can do that?
What, you didn't read any of the ten thousand or so posts on here about burnout, 70 hour work weeks, or PG's opus on how doing a startup packs an entire career worth of work into three or four years?
Incidentally, your prima dona attitude towards maintenance makes you a serious liability on anything larger than a look-what-I-wrote-over-the-weekend web app. Children want to play in the sandbox all day. Mature programmers embrace the entire software lifecycle. I bet you don't write documentation or tests either.
"Writing off startups because they're "in a business of greed" is a straw man at best."
Strawman? I'm not sure that means what you think it means. I dealt with a lot of entrepreneurs during my consulting days. I mean a lot. Seriously. Like an entire fuckton of them. Some where looking to build something truly awesome. Others where just enamored of the idea of being an entrepreneur, with no real conceptualization of what that meant, and no business-worthy idea to build upon. The only common denominator among them was this: they where all looking to drag off a huge pile of cash once the project launched.
Do I think there's anything wrong with dragging off a huge pile of cash? Of course not, I definitely enjoyed dragging off small piles of their cash and would have enjoyed it even more if the piles had been larger. Is that a greed-based incentive? Clearly. Ergo the "business of greed".
Also, anythign I did build would be something that would make the world a better place. Some startups do try to change the world for the better. Most are just doing some advertising, social nonsense, crappy games, or something else completely trivial and useless as a money-grab.
Just because something is "advertising" or "social" does not mean that it is "completely trivial and useless". Very few big problems are solved in one fell swoop. Most of them are overcome by thousands of people chipping away at various parts of them at the same time.
You're right, they totally left out invasive, obnoxious and manipulative.
vs.
>Most are just doing some advertising, social nonsense, crappy games, or something else completely trivial and useless as a money-grab.
>But I would only make things I cared about, at my own pace, and for free.
vs.
>Also, anythign I did build would be something that would make the world a better place.
It's like you waver between taking a self serving "Take-the-money-and-run" attitude and complaints that others are in business solely for greed.
I don't know if I'm more blown away by that, or your cynicism toward startups. Ideas that are trivial and useless are not going to make money. However, ideas that YOU find trivial and useless could very well make money.
I think it's important to consider the viewpoints of others and perhaps while Farmville brings no joy to your life, it doesn't mean it can't be a fun and rewarding experience to someone else.
Also, their wealth was probably caused by their attitude toward work and entrepreneurship, not the other way around.
+1. I like HN but I don't understand why the size of the business / method of funding matters so much, as opposed to what is being done, unless I put on my cynic hat. Once affixed, I realize it's because getting millions in VC (rather than grinding for it) and then selling out to an established player, or selling before the IPO, is incredibly sexy.
A really safe business strategy is to become a middle man who allows other organizations to operate smoothly. You then sidestep having to take a stance on any major issue and make money off other people using the service to do something truly remarkable.
By no means am I familiar with all of YC's businesses but the ones on the front page are basically infrastructure applications. While neat, it seems like the sexiest businesses are ones where you don't actually make something, but you make a tool for someone else to make something. FogCreek sells, among others, a bug tracker, a closed version of an open dvcs, and a Windows RDP clone. Dropbox syncs files and revisions across computers. Others let you create database wrappers ("forms"), create blogs, or find incredibly expensive travel accommodations. I am a user or I want to be a user of most of them, actually, but I'd be lying if I said they are revolutionary or useful on their own.
They're safe business strategies with incredibly intelligent, motivated people at the helm. Now, won't those intelligent, motivated people stop working on cat-pictures projects? I'd do something but I'm too stupid so I'm relying on smart people to change the world.
EDIT:
I know FogCreek isn't a YC venture. I made a really poor segue into talking about businesses with the startup mentality I read about, not specifically YC ones. Oy, what a day.
Also the thought that your job and paycheck is guaranteed is an illusion. We have seen it time and time again: loyal, hard-working employees get kicked out of a job they worked 20 years just because the company is "re-structuring". Unless you're very specialized and non-replaceable, you're at risk, too. The risk is WAY lower than starting and succeeding with a startup, but still.
So why become an entrepreneur instead of developing technology in an R&D lab? Three reasons: change the world, make customers’ lives better and create an organization of lasting value. If you only want to do one of these things, there are better options. But only startups combine all three.
Making money is a fuel to a goal, not a goal in itself. As Tim O'Reilly[2] put it very well:
You should regard money as fuel for what you really want to do, not as a goal in and of itself. Money is like gas in the car -- you need to pay attention or you'll end up on the side of the road -- but a well-lived life is not a tour of gas stations!
[1] http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/10/myth-entreprene...
[2] http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/01/work-on-stuff-that-matters-...
Why do all these commenters seem to think you need a for profit company in order to make things? The Internet is nothing but billions of things that have been made for free in people's spare time. I want nothing more than infinite spare time to make whatever I please as I please as I relax in a tropical paradise with the people I care about. Startups are the opposite of that.
It's ok that you have a different mentality, but understand that it's just that, a different mentality. Some people enjoy the hustle and bustle of building organizations more than lounging on tropical beaches for the rest of their lives.
1) They enjoy work, even if they are working on something that is seemingly trivial. 2) One million dollars is not enough. Nor is 10. In fact, most people that earn a few million rarely retire after that. It is more a game of power, fame, and (possibly) goodwill than wealth. Bill Gates could have retired much earlier, but instead he amassed a huge amount of wealth and started one of the world's biggest charities (the Gates Foundation). Warren Buffet spends very little on himself - he owns one house that he bought for a small sum of money, and he gave 99 percent of his money to the Gates Foundation.
That said, there is a fine line between the "punk kids" (who are usually the designers and developers) and the founders in larger companies. Founders in their second, third, and etc...companies typically have very comfortable lifestyles.
If you give a few million to random person, 99% chance he/she will retire. However, people who EARN few million rarely retire. I imagine that's precisely the difference between those who make it and those who don't.
It's not for everyone, and I am not saying you should think like the above, but please try to appreciate that some people actually do think like that.
My main cost is opportunity; I could easily make 200-400k/yr consulting or working somewhere else. I have enough savings and lifestyle hacks to live pretty comfortably while working on the startup, and we've raised enough money to pay ourselves minimal salaries too once we decide to do so.
If someone gave me $5mm cash, I'd be working on exactly the same thing -- the only difference is I'd go on $30-40k of vacations per year vs. maybe $5k, and I'd possibly invest in some other startups.
I don't think I'd be willing to work on a random social media ad network or facebook game for $250k/yr now or after getting $5mm, but if you're working on problems you genuinely care about, and a startup is the best way to solve those problems, I don't see why money would be much of a factor (as long as you could subsist).
I spent 5-10h/wk doing work-related things I wouldn't do otherwise (meeting with VCs or vendors, mainly); the rest of my time is spent working with people I like on problems I want to solve.
I work to live, I don't live to work. I flat out refuse to work more than 9-5 and even that is too much. These startups expect you to give them your entire lives, 24 hours a day, and weekends, and eat nothing but ramen.
I don't know about you guys, but I have rent to pay. I need to be paid with real cash, guaranteed. I also need to spend as little time at work as possible in order to earn that cash. I have more important things to do, like sleeping, eating, and spending time with friends and family.
I can almost understand the punk kids who do startups, since they have nothing to lose. I absolutely can not understand the VCs or the rich people who do startups. These people have millions of dollars already. As nice and cool as they may be when you meet them, they are fundamentally in a business of greed. They can already retire to a private tropical island forever, but instead they are going to spend their money making some trivial social web app to squeeze out a few advertising dollars.
That's perhaps the real reason I don't do a startup. Nobody wants to give me money because they know that as soon as the check clears I'll be out the door never to be seen again.