Well that was a very arrogantly-worded post. Maybe you didn't mean it to be, but that's certainly how it comes off.

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.

> Well that was a very arrogantly-worded post. Maybe you didn't mean it to be, but that's certainly how it comes off.

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.

Oh, and money.

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.

and that he would take the money and run. lol. who does that?

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?

"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."

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".

If I were on the tropical island, obviously I would still make things. But I would only make things I cared about, at my own pace, and for free. If I already have enough money for food, health, and shelter for the rest of my life, I don't need any more.

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.

Simply because you cannot understand the motivations of someone who has their basic needs covered but continues to build does not mean "they are fundamentally in a business of greed".

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.

"Just because something is "advertising" or "social" does not mean that it is "completely trivial and useless"."

You're right, they totally left out invasive, obnoxious and manipulative.

>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.

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.

Allow me to share a dirty secret. If your startup makes a product that customers actually use, there will be maintenance.

many entreps are good at starting businesses and bad at maintaining them. Some better serve the economy helping launch more businesses rather than fumbling around trying to grow one.

Performing maintenance is the best description I've heard for a ton of the software jobs out there.

> The "rich people" who do startups do it because they love building things that solve big problems

Also, their wealth was probably caused by their attitude toward work and entrepreneurship, not the other way around.