[HN Gopher] There's no such thing as "a startup within a big com... ___________________________________________________________________ There's no such thing as "a startup within a big company" Author : isolli Score : 403 points Date : 2021-02-18 11:17 UTC (11 hours ago) (HTM) web link (hunterwalk.medium.com) (TXT) w3m dump (hunterwalk.medium.com) | lifeisstillgood wrote: | I think this misunderstands the process by which any project gets | funded. There is not a nice orderly process where the CEO says | 'right we are now going to build a website so users can track | their order - here is the spec, and the cash go do it.' | | The CEO (or other CxO) _picks_ from a multitude of projects _that | already exist_ in different forms of completion - both internal | and external. | | For every conceivable project in a large company, there are | already 5 different unofficial versions of the project - two | spreadsheets on an analysts desk, one knocked up by a senior lead | who needed a solution and 2 being hawked around by a MD who had | some spare cash and let someone run with a side hustle. On top of | which there are 3 SaaS options and Oracle probably has one to | sell you, and McKinsey will do a demo next Thursday. | | I will lay good money that when they bought Waze there are two | projects in Google already that did the whole 'tell us what is on | the road ahead' thing. | | But the CEO picked an external buy - and those projects went the | way of the Dodo. | | By time you have big co sign off to do a 'internal' start up, you | have basically hit Seed / series A level. Someone with money | believes in you. You are past the major points of startup failure | (I don't know what the stats are for failed before raising A and | after but I bets its waaay lower) | | I have been in both sides - the small scrappy start up, the | funded start up and the getting something off the ground | unofficially in a bigco. | | And they all feel the same until you get 'blessed from above' | | The Series A slowdown - this is point where all the crazy starts | to slow - you actually have lawyers to read things, etc etc, | someone starts to consider holiday pay and HR stuff. In a bigCo | this hits all at once - all compliance needs to come in. People | look over your shoulder. But its not that different to the Board | suddenly asking new questions. | | So, yes entrepreneur startups are different to 'intrapreneur' | startups, but not that much. Its a fight to get anything off the | ground, usually in spare time, and internal politics looks a lot | like marketing plus who you know in the real world. | | Finally - yes if google is giving out equity for free, then yes | incentives are misaligned. This seems to be a google problem (one | exacerbated by the fact that most previous tech giants had | smaller tech giants after their lunch within a decade or two - we | don't seem to see that in FAANG.) | data_spy wrote: | This is correct. When I was at Allstate they had a 'labs' team to | come up with innovative new technology. They were the only ones | with standing desks, treadmill desks, bicycle desks, and over two | years the only thing they accomplished was design a phone holder | for a bicycle. | | They had much greater success using Kaggle for data science | competitions in terms of innovation. | 5600k wrote: | > Perhaps Corp-Tech should move to employee share buy back where | employees must sacrifice some of their salary for equity or | change equity to vest by a product related metric to connect the | teams performance with the employee returns. | | This doesn't work all that well in my experience. | | Employees focus in the stock which is not in line with the | success of the product. | | ESPPs aren't bad. They're seen as a bonus by most employees and | some get excited watching the stock climb. Some may try to use | that as a motivator. | | But it's more like watching your favorite team on TV that you've | bet on with no control. That doesn't inspire the right behavior. | | Vesting stock based on some product metric would still be | hindered by the futility of attempting to tie stock price to the | actual success of the product. | username90 wrote: | Ask yourself this, would your "startup within a big company" have | managed to lure Mark Zuckerberg or Larry Page to join them | instead of founding their own companies? And even more important, | would it even let such people have lead a significant part of the | company in order to realize their ideas? | | If you answer no to either of those, there is your answer to why | your "startup within a company" can't hit it as big as real | startups. | aerosmile wrote: | The predominant sentiment in the comments is that equity is | worthless, which very well may be a fair statement. It would also | explain why relatively few people decide to start companies, let | alone do it back to back several times after getting burned over | and over again. But those same people will then argue that | founders should not get 10x more equity than employees [0] | (which, for the record, may or may not be justified, but you | can't argue that founders would be better off keeping their jobs | at mega corps, and also at the same time criticize their upside). | | My personal take on this is: | | - Stay at the mega corp if you're exclusively optimizing for | wealth generation. I don't know if I would recommend pursuing the | Skunkworks opportunities, since they are by definition not core | to the business and your contributions won't produce a lot of | profit for the company for a long time. It's unlikely that the | company will remunerate you more than someone who's paying all | the bills. After all, this career path is all about maximizing | your risk-adjusted likelihood of wealth generation. | | - Start your own startup if the journey matters to you. Important | caveat: you will get better at this over time, so if it made | sense to you to start your first company, it will make even more | sense to stick to this career path and do it over and over again. | Don't invest your own money, and hope for the best but expect | each company to fail. Be ok with earning sub-market salary, and | treasure the upside of being your own boss. This approach works | best if you're able to raise pre-product seed financing, which | brings me to the next point... | | - Before you start your own company, be an early employee at a | startup that's run by a serial (and ideally successful) | entrepreneur. You will get the worst of both worlds - not enough | salary and not enough equity - but you will dramatically improve | the odds of success when you start your own company (and will | also improve the chances of raising a pre-product seed round). | Don't do it otherwise. | | What I wouldn't do: keep a job at the mega corp, and work on new | ideas nights and weekends. This may seem like having your cake | and eating it too, but it works far less frequently than you | would expect (you end up sucking at your job and at your startup, | not to mention that your work-life balance is possibly worse than | in any other scenario). Again, the alternative would have been to | be an early employee and learn first-hand about entrepreneurship. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17288343 | nonplussed wrote: | I can't stress the the "ideally successful" part enough. I've | worked at a couple startups where the entrepreneur was serial | but this was their first "success". I felt I learned very | little. Both companies reached a comfortable point and then the | founder didn't know what to do beyond that. | | I came to understand why there's a lot of stories of VCs | forcing out the founder and bringing in a new CEO who had | experience in growing a company. | aerosmile wrote: | I agree. I didn't want to make too much of a point of that, | because if you filtered just for founders with prior exits, | you might have a hard time scoring early opportunities with | them (they usually have plenty of people to fill the first | 20-50 jobs). But yes - joining Square the day it was | announced that Jack Dorsey started another startup would have | been a no-brainer for that career path (same with Max | Levchin's Affirm and many other examples). | zeroonetwothree wrote: | This is very cherry-picked. Actually research has found | that prior business success does not predict future success | at all. Though failure does predict failure, so at least | avoid that. | [deleted] | tlb wrote: | How is it mathematically possible for prior failure to | predict failure, without prior success predicting | success? | curiousllama wrote: | If (past failure) then (future failure) | | Else if (past success) then (future Unk) | | In other words: you can be successful for many reasons, | but typically fail for one. | claudiulodro wrote: | It's very possible: | | - Prior failure, most likely the next venture will fail. | | - Prior success, most likely the next venture will fail. | | Basically, odds are that a venture will fail regardless | of past performance, similar to how past lottery winning | doesn't predict future lottery winning. Personally, I | don't think it's necessarily true (successful founders | will already have an existing audience and investors for | their next product), but mathematically this could be one | way it holds true. | buzzerbetrayed wrote: | Yeah, I'm wondering the exact same thing. | | 1. Take a population of 100 people. There is a 50% chance | that a random person from that population can create a | successful business (obviously 50% is a made up number) | | 2. All 100 attempt to start a business. 50 succeed, 50 | fail. | | 3. The 50 that failed now have a 25% of succeeding in | their future business endeavors. The 50 that succeeded | apparently have the same 50% of success. | | 4. Now, given the same population, there is only a 37.5% | chance that that a random person will succeed in their | next business, which is in direct contradiction to point | number 1. | | I'm not entirely sure I did that right. I'm no | statistician so there may be some glaring logical flaws | there, but that seems correct according to my intuition. | | (edit: formatting) | 23iofj wrote: | _> There is a 50% chance that a random person from that | population can create a successful business... All 100 | attempt to start a business. 50 succeed, 50 fail._ | | This is the most glaring wrong assumption that causes | your and GP's confusion. | | 90+% of startups fail. | | Note: _" failure predicts failure but success does not | predict success" could still be true even if business | failure rates were >= 50%!_ But the fact that failure | rates are higher than 50% is the first and simplest | mistake in this line of reasoning. | buzzerbetrayed wrote: | I know nowhere near 50% of startups succeed (and have | heard the 90% failure rate many times). However, I don't | think that is relevant to the mathematics of it. | 23iofj wrote: | Remember that these are _correlational_ studies! They 're | not directly comparing raw counts of data points, they're | checking for statistical significance. | | It can be that COUNT(failure -> | failure) > COUNT(success -> failure) | | while also being the case that "there is not a | statistically significant correlation between past | success and future success". | | Think about generating a dataset using the process you | outline and then performing a statistical test for | correlation on the resulting dataset. | | Think about the percentages in step 2 and 3. If those get | small enough, then there could be a statistically | significant (failure, failure) correlation in your | generated dataset and also _not_ a statistically | significant (success, success) correlation in your | generated dataset. | | The 90% number [0] explains how those percentages get | small enough that (success, success) is not picked up by | a significance test but (failure, failure) is. | | You don't have to take my word for it, though. You can | actually implement this process, run your favorite test | for correlation, and verify that as those success | probabilities get small you have the above effect. | | What you've proven above is that | COUNT(failure -> failure) > COUNT(success -> failure) | | But just because this is true doesn't mean that there | will be a statistically significant success -> success | correlation. | | Again, the most fundamental reason that can happen is | because failure rates are over 50% [0]. | | -- | | [0] I mentioned in my first comment you can get this | result even with a 50% failure rate. How? Companies and | founders aren't 1:1, founders drop out of the data | generation process, etc. You can play with that to create | similar effects even in extreme cases like failure rates | dropping to 50% but it'd be a bit contrived. | [deleted] | aerosmile wrote: | I should have added some context for why in my opinion | it's important to have an experienced founder when you're | an early employee. Remember - based on the framework I | presented, the goal is not to optimize for wealth | generation - for that you would have stayed at your mega | corp. For simplicity, I am assuming that you cannot | predict success at this early stage of your career | (although clearly some people have phenomenal track | records). | | Instead, the goal is to learn the best practices (lean | startup, hiring above your weight, shipping early, doing | things that don't scale, etc), meet the right people | (colleagues and investors), and also very importantly, | learn how to build the right culture (this is a far more | complicated issue than most first-time founders realize - | hence the need for someone with ideally some historical | perspective). | staysaasy wrote: | I was curious on this and did some googling. | | One thing that I found per a paper from 2008 | (https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/performance-persistence-in- | entrep...): | | "All else equal, a venture-capital-backed entrepreneur | who starts a company that goes public has a 30 percent | chance of succeeding in his or her next venture. First- | time entrepreneurs, on the other hand, have only an 18 | percent chance of succeeding, and entrepreneurs who | previously failed have a 20 percent chance of | succeeding." | | I remember reading something that had a collection of | anecdata indicating that b2b success seemed to be | repeatable but b2c did not. | | Would love to see what other research data is out there. | sdljfjafsd wrote: | Can you share your sources? | staysaasy wrote: | I would add to scenario 3 that the startup needs to do well | enough to grow at least a bit (growth is a great teacher) AND | your position at the startup has to scale with that growth. | Otherwise from what I've seen you might be better off just | starting your own company sooner, as founder equity is 1-2 | orders of magnitude higher than non-exec early employee equity | so it's arguably worth just taking more shots on goal. | | "What I wouldn't do: keep a job at the mega corp, and work on | new ideas nights and weekends. This may seem like having your | cake and eating it too, but it works far less frequently than | you would expect (you end up sucking at your job and at your | startup, not to mention that your work-life balance is possibly | worse than in any other scenario). Again, the alternative would | have been to be an early employee and learn first-hand about | entrepreneurship." | | I like this point a lot, it mirrors my own experience watching | many extremely smart people try and fail at this. This is | actually potentially the single activity that I've seen really | smart people fail at with the highest frequency. | | What _does_ seem to have some payoff is investing | /advising/sitting on boards while keeping a job at a mega corp. | But that isn't the experience that a lot of people are going | for and is also hard. | tarr11 wrote: | Isn't sitting on boards while you work at megaCorp a conflict | of interest / violates your employment agreement? | acomjean wrote: | Wait. In a lot of these startup companies the business plan seems | to be grow the customer base and worry about profit | later.(youtube, Instagram, waze) Selling to a big company with a | lot of capital seems to be the goal or a survival technique. | | Johnson and Johnson I'm told handles the aquiring of businesses | well (it's a business conglomeration of hundreds of entities). I | know someone who left after their division was sold from JnJ and | everything started going south. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_%26_Johnson | varispeed wrote: | This happens with companies who are not big enough to take over | other companies, so they try to latch on the loophole in | capitalism by spawning different products often completely | unrelated to original purpose of the company. Such company will | have a competitive advantage over someone starting from scratch | with a similar product. Question is should it be allowed? This | ultimately leads to creation of those companies that are too big | to fall, that have enough budgets to buy laws designed to keep | competition at bay, do creative accounting and other measures | that small company cannot afford to do. Fortunately these | "startups" within a company usually fail and are not as effective | as take overs. I think take overs should be illegal unless the | technology your are buying is going to be incorporated into the | original company line of products and does not spawn completely | new business. | decafninja wrote: | On a similar note are "tech company inside a non-tech company". | Sometimes referred to as "innovation labs". | whymauri wrote: | Now this I sprint away from as quickly as possible. | TuringNYC wrote: | You should check out: | | - Skunkworks groups | | - Corporate Venture | | - Corporate Labs | | - Spin outs | wiremine wrote: | I'm a VP for a software firm focused on IoT. I work closely with | both actual startups and Fortune 500s companies looking to launch | new connected products. | | I agree there is no such thing as a start up within a big | company. | | But that's not the point. | | The point is to innovate. And a lot of innovation can happen | within a true start up. But a lot of innovation can happen inside | big companies, too. I see it all the time. Most of it, though, is | just incremental innovation, not massively disruptive innovation. | | But that's true of most startups, too. Most startups (the ones | that survive) are incremental in their impact: they make | incremental improvements to some part of our world, and they get | bought. Very few transform into the next Fortune 500 giant and | have that level of impact on society. | | Final thought: I have seen a few world-shaking ideas emerge from | corporate America. The problem is it typically cannibalizes the | core business, or is so outside the core business, and the | C-suite doesn't know what to do with it. | GiftCard22 wrote: | This Is Why You Should Adopt a Cat https://bit.ly/3qt4MHk | gijoeyguerra wrote: | Of course there isn't. The financial risks (all the risks in | general) are totally different. Risks, and lack thereof, drive | behaviors, decisions. | offtop5 wrote: | Having worked for several startups I'll argue they're extra | overrated. You're very likely to work much harder, what's a | holiday when you're the only QA person or the only engineer. | | And for what, on the off chance the IPO goes public and you make | hundreds of thousands of dollars. Give me a big company job | during the day, and I can work on my startup idea at night . | signa11 wrote: | in the days of m.p.l.s _engineers_ at csco, there used to be... | sys_64738 wrote: | Lockheed Skunk Works. | jl2718 wrote: | This can mean many things. Examples: - we don't know what we're | doing yet - we'll be overworking you - our funding is getting cut | off - we're irrelevant to the corporation - we have an open | office - we fire quickly - we wish we didn't work here | s17n wrote: | OP and Noam Bardin both dance around the core issue which is that | you can't give more than a handful of people enough equity to | actually care about your company. | s_dev wrote: | Because a startup within a company will always be making more | money for other people than you. | | Only when you own a startup and that means outside a 'company' | can you ensure your efforts profit you primarily. | zirkonit wrote: | Most successful startups have less than 50% founder economic | equity, some - FAR less. | | It's the capital holders who primarily profit from your work, | whether you're an entrepreneur founder, or a salaried employee. | kenrose wrote: | My own experience ([1]): the biggest different between "startup | inside BigCo" and an actual startup is availability of resources. | | "Startup inside BigCo" generally revolves around spinning up a | new team that's product focused and delivering quickly. | | Depending on which BigCo you're at, delivering quickly could be a | departure from how things are normally done. e.g., You don't have | to worry about writing a big up front proposal doc, going to the | architectural review board, or using the standard infra tooling. | | For engineers on a team, this "feels" like a startup. There are | daily standups. They talk to users and have a sense of ownership | on what's built. There can even be some sense of urgency to ship | quickly. | | While "BigCo startup" teams mimic a lot of the same procedures | and activities as a startup, there is an underlying support | structure at BigCo that isn't there in an actual startup. IMO, | that makes the experiences substantially different. | | Some examples: | | - The cost of failure is different. At BigCo, if the project | fails, it's generally OK. Each engineer can be reassigned to some | new team at BigCo. At a startup, if the project fails, the entire | company fails. | | - There are more people to ask for help. At BigCo, if you're | stuck on some hairy engineering issue, you have a swell of | engineering talent to lean on for help and guidance. At a | startup, you have StackOverflow, Google, and maybe some folks in | your personal network to lean on for help. | | - There's more than just product development. At BigCo, generally | only the engineering / product development team is structured | like a startup. After the code is "done", the regular product | marketing org, marketing org, and sales org (if that's a thing), | can kick into gear. At a startup, there is no such massive | support structure. | | - On the topic of marketing, having the brand of BigCo is a huge | boon to a new product. For mobile apps, there's a lot more trust | in seeing "NewProduct by BigCo" vs. just "NewProduct" in the app | store. Your rockstar CEO may even tweet out the launch | announcement to his millions of followers. | | - And yes, at BigCo, when it's lunchtime, you can go to the | cafeteria and decide if you want the steak or the coq au vin for | lunch. (well, before COVID at least) | | --- | | [1] - I've worked for really small startups (< 8 people), really | big companies (I was person 2000+), and small companies that | became big (joined at 20, left at 200+, now at 500+). | aloukissas wrote: | It's interesting that nobody has yet to bring up all the Cisco | startups (ok, ok spin-offs), i.e. Andiamo, Insieme, etc. Yes, | typically they were all independent companies but the people | there all but wore Cisco badges (they mostly used Cisco | buildings, too). Very successful model to bypass issues e.g. | hitting quarterly earnings goals, while innovating at startup | speed. | cletus wrote: | I saw several of these attempted at Google. They never went | anywhere. Probably the most public was Google Wave. | | Here's the problem: you can't create the same environment without | the same risks and rewards. Google employees get compensated very | well, better than all but the luckiest startup employees. If the | "startup" fails, no biggie. You just move to another project. | | At the same time, the "startup" needs to retain talent so you're | competing with other projects. So what happens? The "startup" | creates an incentive structure that rewards mediocrity that has | nothing to do with the original goals. | | This happened with Wave and it happened with Waymo. | throwaway234378 wrote: | When Google acquired Waze, Waze was nearly running out of money / | dead. Google paid the acquisition very well. It's something Waze | people didn't talk about. | jiriknesl wrote: | There are lots of startups within big companies. Example is Zonky | (peer to peer lending startup) within Home Credit - multibillion | dollar lending entreprise. But they have been created with a | strong team which felt ownership. And as Home Credit was growing | like crazy themselves too, they left this internal startup to | self-manage too. | emidln wrote: | IDK, I worked for a startup (Curiosity.com) within a big company | (Discovery Communications) that spun off and raised a series A to | become an actual company (and was later reacquired by the same | big company). | srg0 wrote: | So, we're commenting what appears to be a comment on another | person commenting his career choice. | | Just in case, this is the original piece written by Noam Bardin: | https://paygo.media/p/25171 | kludgekraft wrote: | What is the main reason though? The BigCo being too risk averse? | Or employees having too much of a safety net? Or BigCo processes | weighing the team down? A combination of these? | AdrianB1 wrote: | Big companies are risk adverse. At the same time, the | motivation for the people is missing, in a startup you have the | chance to become a billionaire or at least a multi-millionaire, | in a big company you can get them a billion and be the employee | of the month with a $100 gift card. I saw it myself some years | ago when I got my company a ~ 5 million/year saving project all | by myself with a one-time cost of ~ 20k, I got a $250 reward on | top of the regular salary. That was a lesson to not care too | much. 2 years ago I got them over half a million per year in a | 3 days of work mini-project, I got nothing, not even a formal | thank you note. That project was not regular work, it was none | of my business and I came with the idea and the execution | alone, so you cannot say I was paid for such work. Translate | this into a risk adverse big company play-pretending to do | startup stuff. | sgt101 wrote: | If you work for someone with $80bn of shareholder capital at | risk you can take 1/10000th of the risk at work than if you | have $8M of shareholder capital at risk. | | It's that simple. | notahacker wrote: | That depends on what the risk is. If the risk is to the | credibility or business model or relationships of the $80bn | core business, then sure, the big company absolutely must be | more conservative. On the other hand, if only a tiny fraction | of that $80bn is needed to underwrite losses from your | skunkworks' niche product taking too long to launch, lack of | rapid uptake isn't an existential threat (even if the project | gets canned, most of the team will still have jobs and they | might even keep the profitable part of the project alive) and | resources can be shared with other areas of the business, | there are other risks that are easier to take. | frongpik wrote: | It's ownership that's the problem. A would-be entrepreneur | can't negotiate a 50% stake with executive rights in a bigco. | rovek wrote: | I don't know if there is a "main reason" for all instances. For | me, on this kind of project at one of the Biggest Co's, it | seemed a bit like the safety net point you make and it creeps | into everything. There didn't seem to be much pressure because | the project was never going to be pulled and had infinite | money. This seemed to manifest in "good people" (my opinion) | working at about 40% capacity and new hires having a background | in companies more like BigCo than InternalStartup. | | Edit: To clarify my last point, my assumption being that the | point of InternalStartup was to allow deviating almost entirely | from BigCo's approach to everything and that those people from | OtherBigCo would be less likely to have that mindset. | kingkongjaffa wrote: | There is, the concept is known as a skunkworks. | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunkworks_project | baxtr wrote: | I have heard that Apple does something like that when | developing new products? | cdavid wrote: | What's interesting about skunkworks is much it gets invoked by | people vs how much it actually happens in practice. | | We engineers love skunkworks: working on cool stuff, without | accountability and a lot of freedom ? Who would not want that ! | But there are very few situations where this is sustainable, | for reasons well explained by OP. | jiofih wrote: | Strongly recommend reading the book - they had _tons_ of | accountability as critical projects were handed to them on | tight deadlines. Yes, working on cool stuff, but delivering | at an extremely high level. | sgt101 wrote: | The final accountability of someone dying if you screw up | must weigh heavily on people designing aircraft. I think it | would make me pretty diligent... | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | _> We engineers love skunkworks: working on cool stuff, | without accountability and a lot of freedom_ | | I'm pretty sure people who keep saying this have no idea what | working at Skunkwork was actually like. | | If you read Ben Rich's book, which I recommend you do, you'll | find out that they had tons of accountability, the more | classified their projects were, the more they were drowning | in paperwork. No employee was to be left alone with the | blueprints and if one of two needed to go to the bathroom | then the plans had to be locked in a safe during that time. | | Also, the hours of work and the stress they were under was | insane as shit would break unexpectedly all the time. | | I'm sure this is not what engineers love, and what they tink | they mean by Skunworks is cowboy coding and being paid | handsomely to play like kindergarten kids in the sandbox with | the latest shiny toys, while leaving work at 5 PM. | sgt101 wrote: | >I'm also pretty sure most engineers don't want this, and | what hey actually want is cowboy coding, playing like | kindergarten kids in the sandbox with the latest shiny | toys, while leaving work at 5 PM. | | Nope. They want autonomy, mastery and purpose. They want to | be able to apply what they know appropriately - not to be | micromanaged or frustrated by instructions that make no | sense. They want to be able to develop skills that make | them valuable to their peers and their organisation - | valuable enough to be secure and able to earn sufficient to | protect their families. They want to know why they are | doing the things that they are doing and to be able to | believe that their efforts will contribute to something | worthwhile. | | If you can provide that all your engineers will both love | you and jump into a bonfire for you. | Aeolun wrote: | Except for that last point, I agree. | | Maybe if it's a tiny bonfire. | sgt101 wrote: | I didn't say that it was alight... | cdavid wrote: | I should have explained a bit better what I meant by | accountability in that context: reduced direct oversight | from general management, almost kinda "chinese wall" style. | | Besides the reasons given by OP, an issue w/ skunkworks is | that it requires two things that happen much less often in | practice than people like: you need very strong, skilled | team, and the need for high impact that management believe | cannot be achieved any other way. | | Similarly, at the heyday of xerox park, it sounds like | Taylor was key to enable true, long term autonomy for his | teams. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | The most famous version of this (where the name came from), was | Lockheed's. A family member's father worked there, and had a | lot to do with some rather exotic avionics. | switch007 wrote: | Skunkworks, also what some deluded people believe you will | remain/be when you get acquired by a big company. | dbattaglia wrote: | I worked for a "startup within a Big Co." for a few months, set | up as an "innovation lab" for a big stuffy 3-letter HR tech / | payroll vendor everyone knows (at least in the US). It wasn't | bad, and I felt like they really tried to make things feel all | fun and "silicon alley" (I'm in NYC), but boy did that whole | facade disappear once you realized you need to use on corporate | VPN to view things on the public internet and a second one to | connect to source control. Or when the companies patent lawyer | comes by to talk to the team about the importance of patenting | every last little idea you have. | | I don't even blame them either, they are a huge company that | can't just change the way they fundamentally do business. But it | does make the whole thing feel a bit artificial. I'm sure for | startups that are acquired it's a bit different but in the end | the same result. | vyrotek wrote: | It worked ok for Carvana which was incubated within DriveTime. | They eventually spun off as a separate company and went public. | DriveTime is still private. | Macha wrote: | Got hit with a medium login wall. | acco102 wrote: | https://archive.vn/TBDz0 | patatino wrote: | no login wall in incognito | sixhobbits wrote: | I mean, sure, but it also misses the point a bit. "Startup in a | big company" doesn't mean "yo take some cashdollar and try build | and release something to the public", but it does mean "hey, take | a small team and do your own thing with less oversight and | process overhead from higher-ups". | | The team I worked in at AWS was like this and it felt a lot like | startup teams I've worked with. That didn't mean we could take | 'brand and legal risk', and if that's what you want then | definitely go and start your own thing. | | If you want more autonomy and higher velocity than is normal at | corporates, then a 'startup within a big company' might actually | work out for you. | lamontcg wrote: | The creation of EC2 originally (which at the time was not AWS | -- AWS was originally the XML-RPC and SOAP APIs that allowed | people to interact with the www.amazon.com website) was done by | a skunkworks project in South Africa. That team was very, very | far removed from Amazon proper and actually delivered. | | That's probably the only time I've seen that kind of startup- | with-a-large-corporation work. I can think of other examples | (like Amazon's google-competing search engine) which tried to | copy that and failed pretty completely. | | I suspect other successful things that happened after I was | there were run as "startups" though (I'd guess Alexa?). | | But in general every other time I've seen those happen at other | companies they've been completely miserable failures. | | Working in IT, usually those "startups" are full of Dunning | Krugers who mostly go to war against the corporate IT and don't | actually have very good business ideas (and honestly the | corporate IT has been run like crap and deserved it, but that | doesn't actually help launch your product). They're usually fed | a bunch of ego-food about how they're the special children | which will entirely transform the next generation of the | company, and then they wind up fighting with everyone else. | ignoramous wrote: | > _The creation of EC2 originally (which at the time was not | AWS -- AWS was originally the XML-RPC and SOAP APIs that | allowed people to interact with the www.amazon.com website) | was done by a skunkworks project in South Africa._ | | AWS did indeed start out with E-commerce Services (2002) and | Alexa Internet APIs (2004), but in mid-2003, when Andy Jassy | took over AWS from Colin Bryar, he completely changed its | charter to build an "Internet Operating System" instead. EC2 | happened in South Africa in 2004 _after_ Jassy and others had | ear-marked compute as one of the key building blocks, along | with Storage (S3) and Database (RDS / SimpleDB). In fact, S3 | launched before EC2 did. SQS launched even before that, in | 2004, though in limited beta. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AWS#History | bovermyer wrote: | Yeah, this. People who are used to actual startup culture and | talk about how "startups" at big companies don't work have a | different internalized concept of what startup autonomy looks | like. | | The success criteria are different, and measured differently. | bitwize wrote: | The word for this is "skunkworks". Even the most independent | skunkworks still serves big-company goals, often taking | advantage of big-company resources and generating IP for the | big company. | | In some ways, a skunkworks is startup-like but in many critical | ways it's way different. | teleforce wrote: | Just came here to say this. The popular examples were the | legendary work at Lockheed Martin, and also at Bell Lab for | Unix. I was under the impression that Unix was well supported | in the beginning at Bell Lab. Apparently according Ken it's | not so and initially they need to piggyback on a grant that | did not even mentioned OS or system research due the | outstanding issues with the Multics project. | nerdponx wrote: | From the data science side of things, this works if and only if | upper management has the discipline to leave you alone, | including letting you procure your own tooling & compute if | needed. | virgilp wrote: | While I worked for Adobe, one of the executives there (Mark | Randall, serial entrepreneur that was "acquired" by the | company, awesome guy) launched the "Red box" initiative that | eventually become https://www.kickbox.org/. The red box was | essentially a "toolbox" that he created on how to build a | startup (set of training materials + $1000USD credit card that | you could use however you wish), and the purpose was to get | enough proof so that you get executive buy-in to continue your | idea - if you achieved that, you got the "blue box" (whose | content was a "secret" but was essentially custom-tailored | support for your project). The entire process banks on the fact | that you validate your ideas _without_ involving the Adobe | brand, because if you slapped "Adobe" over it of course people | and press would get interested. There were some legal caveats | here and there (e.g. you couldn't outright lie and claim you | were _not_ with Adobe), but I think it is to some extent the | closest thing that you can get to "startup within a big | company". | | I personally got to the blue box - but then I gave up, when I | realized that to get it to actually ship I had to sacrifice | nights and weekends. Which would have been maybe fine - except | that I knew that I didn't get to keep any upside. I had most of | the risks of a startup, but very little of the payoff. Great | learning process, but for me - it only managed to convince me | that I shouldn't try within a corporation, if I want to try I | need to actually do it by myself. | aloer wrote: | Is the expectation with the kickbox that you work on your | idea in your own time or was there a process to work on it | during work hours as well? | thinkmassive wrote: | In the link[1] virgilp shared it says red box participants | get 1000 CHF budget, 20% of working time, and access to | experts. | | So they want you to prove out your idea with an allocation | of one workday per week. I'd bet most people have to add | their own nights and weekends to make it successful. | | 1: https://home.getkickbox.com/ | virgilp wrote: | Do note that they appear to have fine-tuned the program. | I was one of the early participants - initially the blue | box was a "secret" because Mark Randall genuinely didn't | know what to put in it. In the meanwhile, the blue box | was refined and it appears that a gold box turned up. | True to his form, he approached the entire process as an | MVP that was evolved & enhanced in time. | virgilp wrote: | Basically, you work it out with your managers/ | organization. Getting the resources to do the product is | part of the challenge. | gifnamething wrote: | >I knew that I didn't get to keep any upside | | That does partially answer what is _not_ in the blue box. | taneq wrote: | > I didn't get to keep any upside. I had most of the risks of | a startup, but very little of the payoff. | | That sounds super exploitative tbh. Using people's passion | and naivety to give you free moonshots. | nmfisher wrote: | I agree that an incentive structure is probably needed as a | matter of practice (since few people will want to do extra | work with zero upside), but I wouldn't call it | exploitative. | | You're an employee, you work for a guaranteed salary now in | return for someone else shouldering the risk. That's the | nature of the deal. If you want to share in the upside, you | have to share the risk. | | It's not like anyone's being forced to do this extra work | (unlike, say, game dev, which _is_ exploitative). It 's | just an option for people who want to tackle interesting | projects. | jlangenauer wrote: | Reward being tied to risk is only for the little people. | One can point at numberous executive compensation | packages where they have plenty of exposure to upside, | and almost no risk (or even negative risk: a golden | parachute if you get pushed out). | kmonsen wrote: | Sure, in that sense it's "fair". It's also meaningless, | as this example shows most people will not make a really | great product if there is no upside for them so they will | mail it in. So sure you can try to squeeze your employees | but maybe if you gave them some more you would get a | smaller percentage of a much bigger pie giving a win win. | It's very unlikely big corporations can do that for the | precedence it sets. | RHSeeger wrote: | But the company isn't shouldering all the cost/risk. | | > I realized that to get it to actually ship I had to | sacrifice nights and weekends. | | If you have to work nights and weekends, but get none of | the benefits for it, you might as well work nights and | weekends on your _own_ side project. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _the company isn 't shouldering all the cost/risk_ | | It's paying your salary. Not having a salary, or having a | lower and/or unreliable one, is part of the risk of a | start-up. | | > _you might as well work nights and weekends on your | _own_ side project_ | | Nights and weekends _plus_ working days. Not just nights | and weekends. Start-up means all in. Hobby means just | nights and week-ends. | RHSeeger wrote: | We're talking past each other here, so I'll try to | simplify where I'm coming from... | | It is exploitative by the company to expect you to work | nights and weekends, but then all the possible benefits | go to the company. If you're going to do work on your | nights and weekends, then do work for yourself, not for a | company that won't compensate you for it. | | The above has nothing to do with whether or not it's like | a startup; it's speaking only to the deal in question | being exploitative. | | _(Side note: I don 't have a problem working some nights | and the occasional weekend for my job. But it's very | rarely expected of me; it tends to happen when I make a | commitment to delivering something in a certain timeframe | and then it turns out my guess as to how long it would | take was wrong. Because I'm flexible, so is my company; | if I need to take a half day to help my daughter with | something, nobody is going to push back on that. I just | wanted to make it clear that I don't consider the | occasional night/weekend exploitative automatically... | just that the situation described by the OP appeared to | be so.)_ | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _It is exploitative by the company to expect you to | work nights and weekends, but then all the possible | benefits go to the company_ | | We're disagreeing, not talking past each other. (Which is | fine!) | | Above-market salaries, bonuses and the promise of | promotion (within the company or without) are fair | compensation for aggressive work expectations. The upside | is sharply capped in comparison with start-ups. But the | downside has been practically eliminated. Nobody bemoans | investment bankers, who have largely this compensation | model. | RHSeeger wrote: | My understanding was that this person's normal job did | not include working nights and weekends. It was the act | of taking on the "company side project" that necessitated | that extra work. | | If the person's job includes working nights and weekend | and compensates fairly for it, and they have the option | of working on an official side project _instead_ of their | normal work, then I agree with your analysis of the | situation. | | If the person's job does not normally include nights and | weekends, and they are compensated based on that, and | adding the official side project to their work adds this | time with no added benefit, then the company is being | exploitative. | | At the high level... | | - if the side project can be done instead of your normal | work, all good | | - if the side project is done in addition to your normal | work, with no additional compensation, then it's | exploitative. | throwaway744678 wrote: | The (implied) benefits you get is that you can work on | interesting things, and probably get much more freedom in | your day job. Looks very fine to me if done on a | voluntary basis. | sonofaragorn wrote: | Just like any other internal hackathon-type event | virgilp wrote: | > That sounds super exploitative tbh. | | It's not, at all. You know very well what you get into, and | have every option to get out at any point, with zero | downside to your career. You get paid, get to learn a lot, | get to experience building a product with basically zero | risk for yourself. Why would the company also give you the | upside? They put a lot of resources into this program. | | Also, it appears that Mark enhanced the program in the | meanwhile/ I was one of the early participants. There's | more structure now, and there's a "goldbox" that suggests | he figured a way to give employees some guaranteed upside. | spaetzleesser wrote: | "except that I knew that I didn't get to keep any upside. L | | Same at my company. They have similar programs but you also | don't get any stake in the outcome and are still controlled | by executives who in the end get the credit. | | Same for hackathons they tried to organize. The idea quickly | turned from fun projects basically into overtime to check off | Jura tickets quickly but with the addition of free pizza. | | I think leadership in big companies is almost by definition | very controlling. They simply can't let go. It's against the | instincts that got them into their positions. | vmception wrote: | Pretty much all company hackathons are just tech debt day | | At startups and big companies | [deleted] | cambalache wrote: | It is astounding to me how smart, conscientious adults can | be manipulated with kindergarten-level tactics. | | I dont know if psychopathy (or the whole dark triad?) can | be quantitatively measured but I would not be surprised in | the least if after the mean value, any % of incremental in | psychopathy is way better than its equivalent in IQ to | survive and thrive in the corporate world. | simonebrunozzi wrote: | Super interesting. Would you mind sharing more about it? | virgilp wrote: | I wouldn't mind, but I don't know what - ask if you have | specific questions. There's ample material on | https://kickbox.org and https://home.getkickbox.com/ | (basically all the contents of the red box, minus the | cash), plus it appears one even has access to a "kickbox | community" from what I can tell. | andrewguenther wrote: | Agreed on this feeling within AWS. The product I worked on came | out of an engineering brainstorming meeting, we had to get it | funded, small team, etc. Felt very much like startups I've | worked at before and was part of the reason I stayed at AWS so | long. | caturopath wrote: | I was really shocked to see into a couple 'startup in a big | company' teams at my company and to realize just how little | they actually went off-leash. I don't know the details -- how | much of it is not being allowed, how much of it is people | who've worked here 10 years believing we're doing things the | right way -- but I was really taken aback by the number of | things they had to slow them down and the amount of oversight | that seemed to be in place, given the general concept. | bitcharmer wrote: | Glad you shared your experience. The title of the article is | completely misleading and many people in the comments who claim | it's impossible are either wrong or don't understand the | meaning of this phrase. | | I have been a (very happy) part of two such startup-within-a- | big-corpo initiatives during my career in investment banking. | | Although on different (in my opinion: better) terms, it does | happen, although quite rare. | pembrook wrote: | Sounds like in your case it worked out, but I would consider | AWS to be an insane outlier...also from a company still | founder-led (Bezos is an exec with proven startup success-- | hence why Amazon exists in the first place!). | | I think the point of the author is that, inside a big company, | the fundamental risk/reward incentives that drive startup | innovation are removed. Autonomy alone doesn't drive people to | make crazy decisions. Risk/reward incentives do. | | Google is never going to say to one of their internal | employees: | | _" We're cutting your salary to $50k/yr, but you get 80% | ownership of the business you create if you succeed. But | there's a 95% chance you won't. And if you don't succeed you're | fired. Good luck!"_ | | That's the equivalent environment needed if you want to mimic | the human decisions and behavior that drive innovation inside | startups. | varjag wrote: | That's the environment startups exist in due to economic | realities of having little money to go on rather than some | grand strategy. | | There is a possibility a better balance of risk/reward (say | 5% of ownership and 150k salary) could well produce just as | good or better outcomes. | pembrook wrote: | The problem is, if this employee is the perfect person to | create this business, why are they working at Google and | not on their own starting this venture already? | | Why waste time letting one of your clearly risk averse in- | house employees (hence why they work at Google in the first | place), fumble around for 5-10 years trying to build | something? While your competitors might be doing the same | thing and will actually succeed? And while the rest of your | employees start complaining, "why can't we also play | startup for 5-10 years on the Google gravy train like | John?" | | Google can just sit back and let the _real_ startup | ecosystem do its thing. Then buy whatever they see that has | shown success in areas of strategic value to Google. No PR | or legal risk while the startup does necessary but shady | things to force itself into being. This is a much better | model, hence why innovation is most often acquired, not | incubated. | varjag wrote: | I assume 150k at Google is enough salary demotion to | provide motivational filter, but feel free to adjust the | figure as you see fit. | brandall10 wrote: | I think the point he was making is it's a half measure | compared to having no safety net. The "adjust as you see | fit" would be not operating under the Google umbrella at | all. | | The simple act of having to do the rounds to repeatedly | secure financing and letting that, or the actual | performance of the business, gate growth or survival and | being a cofounder or employee in this environment has a | different emotional and operational strain on the | business. | | I worked in a company like this btw for about five years, | we were started as a subsidiary of a successful medical | device company by that ceo as a "what if", to take the | already developed dispensing hardware by our parent and | adopt it to the general supply chain management industry. | We were doing decent business ($30M ARR for a 40 person | company) and were minimally profitable but eventually | shuttered by our parent company after it became apparent | the hockey-stick like growth was not coming. | | I've also worked at startup that failed after about 6 | years. The difference between how those two companies | screeched to a halt was stark. In one case it came out of | the blue and suddenly 1/3 of the employees were sucked up | into the parent company and the rest got pink slips. In | the other case it was a really wild final year with the | writing clearly on the wall, multiple furloughs and | downsizing for survival. | paulryanrogers wrote: | Big companies buying startups looks like the most likely | 'successful' outcome today. Yet with effective antitrust | maybe it shouldn't be. | bluefirebrand wrote: | > "yo take some cashdollar and try build and release something | to the public", but it does mean "hey, take a small team and do | your own thing with less oversight and process overhead from | higher-ups" | | Or what we used to just call "An R&D department" | apohn wrote: | >but it does mean "hey, take a small team and do your own thing | with less oversight and process overhead from higher-ups". | | If you are interviewing for a "startup in a big company" job, | one of the first questions you should ask is "how much | oversight and process do we have from the larger company?" Make | sure you ask a lot of questions about how decisions are made, | who the product is being built for, how it is being sold, etc. | | I've worked in two "startups" in two very different big | companies. In both situations, the every major decision had to | go through the larger org, which meant basically the whole | thing was a waste. The only things that were approved were | things the big company was already doing. | | I'll provide a concrete example. I was involved in a product | where our people had to work with the larger account execs of | existing customers. The idea was the account execs could take | the product to existing customers easily and grow very rapidly. | What really happened was the account execs refused to put the | product in front of customers unless it fit into the larger | enterprise architecture strategy. They didn't need a startup - | they needed a typical huge enterprise software team. So | basically the product that got built was a completely half- | baked POS that only looked good on slides. It was a market | failure. | xyzelement wrote: | This seems kind of obvious and does this article stem from | someone taking the term startup too literally? | | Obviously it's not the same - nobody hears "startup in a big | company" and assume start-up things like "paid inequity, on your | ass if this fails, barely health insurance, etc.". Those things | are part and parcel of a startup life and both create the | conditions and attract the kind of people who do that. | | Startup within a large company always just meant a fairly | independent team that is exploring a new space, and having been | "there" a bunch of times I can tell you it's awesome. I am now at | a real startup that's awesome as well but different. | | Just making the point that to write this scathing article drawing | a distinction that is actually just obvious, seems pointless. | Deestan wrote: | A lot of affirmations that it is not possible, with examples of | where it didn't happen, but doesn't really go into "why" at all. | The closest they get was near the end by alluding to risk- | aversion and having to wear Google badges to the cafeteria. | nojvek wrote: | When I was at PowerBI in Microsoft, all the execs hailed it as | Startup within Microsoft. Come work here instead of Uber. I | worked like a dog, sometimes till 2am in morning. My manager | would routinely ask us to come on weekends. I was naive, I | thought we are growing customer base, this is what a startup | looks like. | | The ultimate realization was in a startup you have equity, a | decent amount in a good startup. At Microsoft it was a base | salary and set amount of stock. What we did moved very little of | the top revenue metric. It made little difference if I worked | like a dog, or slacked. The promos were very much "buddy buddy" | system. | | In the end I realized you can't have startups in big companies | (esp as an engineer you don't have the huge upside if the startup | is successful, your upside is capped) | | Startups work because you have skin in the game, when you build | something people want, you get to reap rewards proportional to | it. That correlation and feedback loop is very important. | | At big companies you don't have the the same correlation. Some | big shot exec they hired reaps far far more on the work you did. | | Equity is what builds wealth. | abhinav22 wrote: | Off topic, but were you involved in PowerQuery/PowerPivot as | well? | | I have moved away from Excel, but was one of the first users of | PQ/PP, it was a great step forward and my understanding is | PowerBI was an extension of that. | | Congrats because everybody I know loves PowerBI! Well done, | even if the rewards may not have been commiserate. | somberi wrote: | I would like to offer an extended view from the wealth | accumulation angle. True, equity builds wealth, but in a | startup, since there is no floor protection, when the startup | becomes worthless (can happen for any number of reasons, and | often do), then one wishes one had taken a salary (and | reinvested in stocks or as seed investment - ways to gain | equity exposure). | | One could argue that PowerBI, in this example, gained any | traction at all because it benefited from the large customer | base and marketing muscle of Microsoft. | | To extend further on the point Nojvek makes about how PowerBI | moved very little of the topline revenues of the company; this | also means that the bonus accrued to the author was because | _some other team moved the needle_. This grouping of risk for a | mean payoff, could be a desirable outcome as well, if one has | better avenues to invest the capital. It all comes down to how | one views risk, its mitigation, and wealth accumulation | horizon. | munificent wrote: | _> when the startup becomes worthless (can happen for any | number of reasons, and often do), then one wishes one had | taken a salary (and reinvested in stocks or as seed | investment - ways to gain equity exposure)._ | | Well, sure. And when the startup becomes worth billions, one | wishes they had taken the options instead of a higher salary. | | This is just an observation that having information lets you | make better decisions. Unfortunately, most of the best | information lives at a point in the future after we must make | the decision. | thegginthesky wrote: | The point is that the odds of any startup to be worth | billions, or for an employee stock option be worth a lot | more than accumulated high base salary, is very very low. | | So if one optimizes by using the expected value over time | the conclusion is that high base salary tends to trump | employee equity. One can make this sort of inference at any | point in time, without hindsight at all. | wwww4all wrote: | Most engineers at startups get very little equity and most end | up worthless due to dilution or failure. | | Even if engineers hit the startup lottery, the payout for most | are not that much. Very few end with multi million dollar | payouts. | | Statistically, financials are better with big company offers | for most engineers. | | Some engineers that get in early with a unicorn can hit the | jackpot. This is mostly combination of timing and luck and | network. Some just happened to be in the right place at the | right time with right group of people. PayPal engineers, early | Google engineers. | | Early Apple engineers were not so lucky. | ghaff wrote: | Apple stock was essentially a flat line until about 2004. At | which point, a random person who put in $10,000 would today | have $4,000,000 had they held. | vinger wrote: | Another point. If you are outside of SV / California your | startup payouts are generally very small. | codemac wrote: | This is why it was a founder that complained about the | equity/pay problems, rather than any engineer. | | If they actually rewarded their Waze employees with enough | equity, the employees would have pushed much harder to not | get acquired and been much more upset afterwards. You should | be highly suspect of any investor or founder that thinks an | acquisition is a successful outcome. | | What's clear is that Waze employees finally got compensated | fairly, and the founders suddenly didn't have 100x upside. | There's a reason it's a founder with the frown at TGIF at | Google, and all the employees are excited and smiling. | | They're finally getting paid. | stuff4ben wrote: | Yes, while financially you may be better with BigCorp, there | are some benefits of startups that I experienced first hand. | First is the experience of being a fast-moving startup and | the comradeship that you build with your colleagues. I'm | still friends with people I worked with at my first startup | 15 years ago. Second is the learning experience of being | around very smart people. I learned so much in my 4 years at | my first startup. From how startups work (and that my equity | was worthless) to how to do modern (at the time) development | in Java. Finally, as someone mentioned earlier, you get to | see how your work moves the needle. That feedback cycle is | addictive! Also, you can see when you screw up the opposite | happen (I once personally caused a loss of a couple hundred | dollars in revenue due to a bad SQL query). | DebtDeflation wrote: | >The ultimate realization was in a startup you have equity, a | decent amount in a good startup. At Microsoft it was a base | salary and set amount of stock. | | I joined a startup in 1999. There were 3 founders and I was | employee #2 after that. I received a ton of options (this was | before RSUs became popular). We had a great product and a great | team, but 18 months later ran out of money and unfortunately it | was right after the dotcom implosion of early 2001 when funding | had completely dried up. | | My takeaway was that base salary is actually the most important | component of TC. Cash bonus based on some metric that you | control comes second. Equity comes third. If you work for a | FAANG, maybe equity can move higher up (though it remains to be | seen how long this will be true). | | Outside of FAANG (and top executives at F500 sized public | companies) very few people are getting rich off of the "equity" | component of their TC. The vast majority of startups go bust | before IPO or acquisition. | | Time is the most valuable commodity you have, don't squander it | for lottery tickets and empty promises. | spoonjim wrote: | The flip side is that I valued my equity at $0 when I joined | but it's now worth $2 million. | marcinzm wrote: | >Time is the most valuable commodity you have, don't squander | it for lottery tickets and empty promises. | | That goes the other way around too, the only way to have | massive amounts of free time without going FIRE is to win the | lottery. So why not throw the dice once or twice when you're | young and then settle into a stable corporate job if it | doesn't pay out? | Swizec wrote: | Modern Silicon Valley lets you do both. Why not throw the | dice and still make around $200k cash? | | As a [good] engineer you can have your cake and eat it too. | Sure it won't make you a billionaire but you can live a | comfy life, maybe win the lottery, and retire at 50 if the | lottery fails. | westurner wrote: | Living and working elsewhere with the wages of the region | reduces expenses and opportunities; but the wealth of | educational resources online [1][2] does make it feasible | to even bootstrap a company on the side. Do you need to | borrow money to scale quickly enough to pay expenses with | sufficient cash flow for the foreseeable future? | | Income sources: Passive income, Content, Equity that's | potentially worth nothing, a backtested diversified | portfolio (Golden Butterfly or All Weather Portfolio and | why?) of sustainable investments, Business models [3]; | Software implementations of solutions to businesses, | organizations, and/or consumers' opportunities | | Single-payer / Universal Healthcare is a looming family | expense for many entrepreneurs; many of whom do get into | entrepreneurship later in life. | | Small businesses make up a significant portion of GDP. | Small businesses have to have to accept risk. | | There's still opportunity in the world. | | [1] Startup School > Curriculum | https://www.startupschool.org/curriculum | | [2] https://www.ycombinator.com/library | | [3] "Business models based on the compiled list at [HN]" | https://gist.github.com/ndarville/4295324 | | From "Why companies lose their best innovators (2019)" | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23887903 : | | > _" Intrapreneurial." What does that even mean? The | employee, within their specialized department, spends | resources (time, money, equipment) on something that | their superior managers have not allocated funding for | because they want: (a) recognition; (b) job security; (c) | to save resources such as time and money; (d) to work on | something else instead of this wasteful process; (e) more | money._ | ryandrake wrote: | I'd you are going to start something on the side, | carefully read your current employment agreement, | particularly the part about IP assignment. Most Silicon | Valley companies I've worked with, including FAANGs, | claim ownership of _everything_ you produce, inside or | outside of employment, at home or in office, using their | equipment or yours. You don't want to lick into a unicorn | idea and have your former employer's lawyers send you | that letter... | moneywoes wrote: | Are these actually enforceable? | ryandrake wrote: | It probably doesn't matter in practice. They will have | more lawyers and more money to burn on legal process than | you. Who will go bankrupt first fighting a legal battle | between you and, say, Apple? | ptudan wrote: | The only time they'd actually sue is if you made | something worth money. in that case, there's a good | chance you can get investors to pay the lawsuit. | triceratops wrote: | Investors would check if you were subject to an IP | assignment clause in your employment contract prior to | investing. It's part of basic due diligence. They would | then most likely pass on the investment. | lotsofpulp wrote: | It does matter in practice in California. | dv_dt wrote: | In practice, I don't think I've ever seen a SV example of | that kind of litigation from garage development of IP. | Maybe I've just missed them? | | Theft of IP from one company to a new company on the | other hand there are multiple public examples of. | Mauricebranagh wrote: | If its "related" to your employers business yes - unless | you agree a variation of the contract. | alwaysdoit wrote: | I actually lost money when the first company I worked for | sold. | | At settle, I received a wire transfer for $7.22. The bank | charged me a $15 incoming wire transfer fee. | CydeWeys wrote: | > Equity comes third. If you work for a FAANG, maybe equity | can move higher up (though it remains to be seen how long | this will be true). | | Tech companies are the largest companies in the US economy | these days. They _are_ the economy. For better or worse they | 're now too big to fail, and in some severe recession they | would end up being bailed out like the banks were in 2008 | since the alternative is a complete economic implosion. | | I treat my RSUs as cash that has some variance to it (less | variance than crypto, and roughly the same as the stock | market overall). I even auto-sell them. | trimbo wrote: | > The vast majority of startups go bust before IPO or | acquisition | | In recent times, these giant late rounds with the amount of | preference given mean that when acquisition happens, it often | doesn't pay out for regular employees/common stock. The | common stock employees get is for the moon or bust, or hope | an acquiring company is generous. | ptmcc wrote: | The best many non-founders can hope for is a cushy acqui- | hire deal. | | I've had several friends have the startups they worked for | acquired, and their equity was worth nothing due to | valuation and unfavorable liquidation preferences. | | They got a nice hiring package from a big company, but not | significantly better than one can get from applying on your | own. And the opportunity cost of taking a below-market wage | for several years probably nets out to a loss in pure | dollar terms. | Viliam1234 wrote: | In my humble opinion, Bitcoin is a better lottery that | equity, because it does not require you to work till 2am in | morning. | | Instead of equity, ask for higher salary, and invest the | difference in cryptocurrencies, stock market, and even the | old-fashioned lottery. Maybe a bit of everything, to balance | the portfolio. Your chances are not worse, and you can go | sleep before the midnight. | wpietri wrote: | I think an important difference between equities (your | company's options, the regular stock market) and the other | things (lottery tickets, digital commodities like Bitcoin, | and traditional commodities like gold) is that equities are | overall positive sum. The point of (most) businesses is to | create value greater than their inputs. Speculating on | commodities is in theory zero sum, but in practice | negative. Actual lotteries are clearly negative sum. (US | state lotteries return only about 60% of the input money as | prizes.) | | So if people aren't sure what to do with surplus time/cash, | equity will (on average, over the long haul) produce a | better return. Buying an index fund gives you zero control | but good odds on a steady return; trading your time for | equity (a company you start or one you join) gives you more | control and narrow odds on a higher return. | | There's no one right answer here, though. I'm happy with | the startups I've done, but right now I'm happy to be | banking a steady salary. A lot of this depends on one's | situation in life and one's personal values, especially | risk tolerance. | iancmceachern wrote: | Great thought! It doesn't have to be crypto, it could be | any reasonable investment... | sharkweek wrote: | Friend of mine left MSFT back in the early 2010s for a | startup that is set to IPO in the next year or two if all | the prevailing winds remain relatively similar. | | He'll do pretty well in the IPO because he has some of | those early enough options as one of the first 25ish | employees. | | BUT!!!He left MSFT at $30-40ish a share, now worth $240 a | share. Unfortunately, he divested most of it into more | general index which has been fine, but not 6x. | | He would have EASILY covered whatever money he's likely | to make in the IPO by just staying at Microsoft and | holding company shares for the last 9 years, and in fact | probably would have made way more given stock | rewards/promotions/salary increases etc. | | That being said, he has enjoyed working at the startup | and it has propelled him into a role that he wouldn't | have been in at MSFT or any other big company so there is | that to consider as well. | t0mas88 wrote: | Investing in the right single stock always outperforms | the index. But risk adjusted returns may not be better | than a diversified portfolio, Microsoft could also have | dropped due to some scandal whereas the downside risk of | a balanced portfolio is much smaller. | sharkweek wrote: | Absolutely, and him and I both _know_ this, but... I | still like to remind him of it (only because we 're close | enough to prod each other like this). | xwolfi wrote: | Well but how do you get the money to buy any bitcoin in the | first place ? | | You don't invest in crypto currencies, you join early | enough to sell to the next level of the pyramid you | convince via social media post :s | | But well you're right to say people should balance | portfolio, I however don't see the value of the lottery, | it's like paying taxes twice, with no chance of winning | ever. At least bitcoin slowly loses value, a lottery ticket | will lost its entire value a few days after purchase in | 99.9999% of cases | tcoff91 wrote: | Bitcoin slowly loses value? Even those who bought the | very top in 2017 have more than doubled their money if | they didn't sell. Bitcoin, when it does lose value, loses | it very quickly but on longer time horizons nobody has | ever lost money by holding bitcoin for 3+ years. That | being said, buying at current levels is extraordinarily | risky and more equivalent to gambling than anything else. | | The expected ROI of the lottery is so low though It's | hard to take someone seriously that mentions playing the | lottery as an actual smart financial move. | np- wrote: | People doubled their money on paper in unrealized gains. | But since Bitcoin is being sold as a store of value and | not as a medium of exchange nowadays, if you want to | realize that value you need to sell. Where's that cash | coming from? Other buyers, i.e. the next layer of suckers | as indicated in OP's post. And if enough people decide to | sell, then those doubled/tripled/etc values aren't going | to last very long. | | Note I'm not saying that it's not possible to win in this | system - clearly some people will, at the expense of many | others. Perhaps it's my own ignorance, but I genuinely | struggle to see how this isn't a zero sum game. | ZephyrBlu wrote: | The stock market is zero sum as well... When one person | wins, another loses. | | Are people buying Google, Facebook and Amazon stock | suckers as well? | np- wrote: | Well, no comment on if they're suckers or not, but I | think this is a misunderstanding of what a share in a | company is. With a share, you own something with actual | tangential value, i.e. claim on dividends/voting | rights/cash flow/etc. Plus the company itself can | actually go and do valuable things and make money - Apple | can go and sell a bunch of iPhones and make a ton of | money, and then reward their investors through dividends, | buybacks, etc. That's not zero sum, there was something | of value created and provided to the world. I do | understand that in reality many people play the stock | market like it's a casino, but that doesn't change the | fact that it's still fundamentally different. | petters wrote: | The stock market is certainly not zero sum. | | Bitcoin provides very little value outside speculation, | not zero, but very little. That is the difference. | Animats wrote: | Stocks have dividends. The value of a stock is the | present value of all future dividends. Otherwise you're | hoping to find a greater fool. | wpietri wrote: | As somebody who also has a bunch of lottery tickets that | didn't pay off, I feel your pain. But I think there's a bit | of hindsight bias to your conclusion. I think it's entirely | reasonable for people to trade salary for equity. I also | think it's reasonable to stick with cash. As long as people | are making well-informed choices, I'm entirely fine with | gambling on a positive-sum effort. | | That said, there are good questions about how much things | have changed vs 25 years ago, how likely an early employee is | to see a big payout on exit, and how much the fever for VC- | backed startups distorts employee choices. But that's another | rant.) | jjeaff wrote: | There is also something to be said for the information | asymmetry between employer and employee. From the outside, | it is hard to know what the odds of winning really look | like. Founders are always painting a rosy picture of how | close we are to breaking out or getting that next huge | round of funding. The reality may be totally different. | Things may actually be rather bleak and they are hoping to | just limp along, paying low salaries and giving out | worthless stock in hopes that just maybe they will hit the | startup lottery. | | At least with gambling, the house has to post the odds. | g9yuayon wrote: | Startup is not a lottery. Working for startup is risky, but | the key is to build a system that increases your accumulated | probability of success -- this is exactly why it's important | to live in the bay area and work for some startups there, at | least before the Covid-19. You get to see a large number of | people who didn't fund any company, but still became | financially independent or built an explosive career by | choosing to join the right companies at the right time. You | get to see how those people make their choices. You get to | see how those people decide to jump ship. You get to build a | social circle where you learn lots of first-hand information | about startups. | | Yes, it's still risky to join a startup, but no it's not a | lottery. The chance of being rewarded handsomely is orders of | magnitude higher than buying lottery. | jjeaff wrote: | I wonder how many people each year make at least $1m from | startup equity appreciation (that is actually liquid). | | Because it's between 1500 and 2000 people that win at least | $1m in lotteries in the US every year. Granted, lots more | people play the lottery than start or join a startup, but | it's an interesting comparison. | g9yuayon wrote: | I'm not sure if the calculation is correct. 2000 people | winning lotteries out of at least millions of people, | right? Yet in the startup word, it is thousands of people | out a few hundreds of thousands? Another factor to | consider is that your equity keeps giving, while lottery | is a one-off deal. | chokeartist wrote: | > Time is the most valuable commodity you have, don't | squander it for lottery tickets and empty promises. | | This should be the first thing someone sees when they load | the Hacker News homepage. | kelnos wrote: | I agree with your overall premise, but I think you and the | parent are talking about fundamentally different things. | | If I'm at a startup and I'm constantly working 14 hour days, | I want equity. Because I am not going to work 14 hour days | (or even 10 hour days) for just a normal base salary. I mean, | sure, I wouldn't mind instead taking 4x a normal base salary | to work those 14 hour days, but no company (startup or | established business) is going to give you that deal. That | equity may end up being worth nothing over the long term, but | by joining an early startup, I am betting on a solid founding | team and the product, and the team's ability to execute. And | because it's a small team, I'm betting that I personally can | be a big component in whether or not the company succeeds or | fails. (Often it'll succeed or fail despite what I do, but | that's not the point.) | | We can debate the wisdom (with regard to productivity and | health outcomes) of working habitual 14 hour days at all in | the first place, but the bottom line is that if I'm going to | be pouring so much of my life into something, I at least want | the _possibility_ (even if the _probability_ is low) of a | life-changing financial outcome. It 's pretty rare that | you're going to get that with a base salary, even at a | larger, well-established, public company that has decently | high growth. | | And I get it, some people just don't want to make the base | vs. illiquid-equity trade off. An early-stage startup is | probably not for those people anyway, and there's nothing | wrong with that. I did it three times: one was a complete | flop (after I'd paid to exercise options that became | worthless shares), one was a mediocre flop (got out of there | in under a year, knew they were incapable of shipping, turned | out I was right), and one was more successful than I ever | expected. And yet I'm happy I joined all three, even the | first one. | | > _Outside of FAANG (and top executives at F500 sized public | companies) very few people are getting rich off of the | "equity" component of their TC. | | Not even _at* FAANG. A new hire (today) at one of those | companies is not going to get a life-changing equity grant. A | hire from back when they were relatively new companies (or, | as with Apple, down in the dumps circa 2000) can get that. | But, a hire at that point will be expected to work more | (often much more) than a normal 8-hour day. | | I think people forget that a mulit-millionaire Googler who | has been there since 2003 and is still there now is likely | mainly rich because of the equity they got in the first 3 or | 4 years. As companies mature, their equity comp declines | rapidly. If that same person had joined Google 5 or 7 or even | 10 years ago as an individual contributor, their equity comp | would not make them rich; they're now getting most of their | wealth from base salary. | | > _The vast majority of startups go bust before IPO or | acquisition._ | | Right. And that's why you shouldn't join a startup because | you expect to get rich. You should join because you like that | style of work better than large-corporation life. But if | they're going to expect you to pour your life into that | startup, you should get a big chunk of equity that can -- | _if_ things work out -- compensate you for those long hours | someday. | harikb wrote: | The thing most people forget about options & RSU is that one | is taking away a big chunk of the TC and delay it to a future | year. Even when you hate your job, you will be hesitant to | leave the company because of FOMO and sunk cost fallacy | | That said, anecdotally, every one of my close circle of | friends made decent amount money from equity (one of the many | companies they worked at did very well) - far higher than the | 10% stat that I hear talked about. May be the last two | decades was lucky for this group of people. | ptmcc wrote: | Let's be careful here and not conflate options and RSUs, | especially comparing between startups and public companies. | | Options in a startup are extremely likely to be worth | nothing, ever. Not only does the company need some sort of | liquidity or exit event, but the valuation then also has to | be higher than the strike price on your options. And | options usually have punishing exercise-or-lose-them | requirements if you leave the company before a liquidity | event. | | RSUs, once they vest, are yours without having to exercise | them. If it's a public company you can turn around and sell | them on the open market immediately if you desire and get | cash for them. If the company's stock declines, your RSUs | are still worth something since the "basis" is $0. If you | leave the company, your vested RSUs are still yours. | | Yes 1-year cliffs for vesting are common and do defer | compensation, but 1 year is not a long time at all to be at | a company especially a large public company. After the | first year the regular vesting cadence sets in and it's | just a slightly more complicated form of cash, with market | risk. | | Over the past few years that market risk has hugely | benefitted most tech companies and RSU recipients. In 2020 | my RSU comp was more than 50% of my total comp, basically | doubling my (already high) base salary. ESPP further | compounded that. | FartyMcFarter wrote: | > The thing most people forget about options & RSU | | These two are very different things and they shouldn't be | conflated. If you have FAANG RSUs vesting every few months | or every year, you can convert them to cold hard cash on a | regular basis. | | Options in a startup, or a company that isn't traded | publicly are a different animal. | walshemj wrote: | Very much so I (UK) have made some nice tax free returns | on FTSE 100 companies share saves. | | Pity we didn't get an exit back in 2000 when I had 0.5% | of Poptel (everyone was a dollar millionaire at one | point). | | At the moment I have EMI shares in my current employer | which vest on change of control | CydeWeys wrote: | > The thing most people forget about options & RSU is that | one is taking away a big chunk of the TC and delay it to a | future year. | | That's not my experience. My TC is the amount I'll | _actually_ make this year (and have made in previous | years), which includes my salary, bonus, and the value of | the RSUs at vesting, which I auto-sell. I 'm not "delaying" | anything; I'm making great money right _now_. Unvested | shares only matter to the extent that your future income | might over /underperform current predictions to some | extent. I definitely don't consider them "mine" yet in any | way; they're simply a leading indicator of my estimated | future TC at this company if I continue to stay employed | here. | | Options, yes, are a different matter, but RSUs in big | companies are almost as good as cash (and when the market | is going up, as it has been this past decade, they're | _better_ than cash). | AnHonestComment wrote: | I think the point is HR counts your options 1 year in as | part of year 1 comp, which it obviously isn't. | xapata wrote: | > my close circle of friends | | That's extreme selection bias. One of the major ways | startups recruit is via friends. | dhosek wrote: | I have never had a stock option that was worth as much as a | penny in the course of my career. In one case, a "can't | lose" employee stock purchase program (where you put aside | money for purchase and at the end of the year you would get | stock bought at the lower of the price at the beginning and | end of the purchase period with a 10% discount on top of | that) ended up being a loss because the stock dropped 50% | between the purchase of shares and delivery of the shares. | The company was eventually bought out by 3M and I got a | hundred bucks or so out of my initial investment (which | was, thankfully only a thousand or two, if I recall | correctly). | laurent92 wrote: | A company sold for 3 million is... I mean, in average, I | see that the worth is about 1m$ per employee. If you sold | for less, your stock performed poorly compared to others. | Maybe the product or the engineering was great, but on | the wrong market or never met its window. Business is | difficult. | | The question is, would you have had excellent returns if | the company had been worth $1m per employee? | DamnYuppie wrote: | Equity can also be bought with your excess capital for you | work. At the current market salary for developers it should be | quite obtainable to live well below your income and invest a | sizeable portion of it in the markets, either stock or | realestate. Do this for 10 years and about 20 years later you | will have many millions of dollars. | UncleOxidant wrote: | You can certainly work like a dog in an actual startup with the | hope that your equity will someday be worth something... only | to have it be worth nothing because the company didn't make it. | This is what happens in the vast majority of startups as few | startups end up making the big time. | onion2k wrote: | _Equity is what builds wealth._ | | In exceptional circumstances, yes. In _most_ circumstances | equity in a startup ends up being worthless, even in the event | of exit. Starting your own startup, or joining a startup as a | very early employee can make you rich; anything else and you | might as well be buying lottery tickets. | | That's not to denigrate startups _in any way_. Working in a | startup is amazing. It 's just not how you get rich as an | employee unless you are _staggeringly_ lucky. | [deleted] | Justsignedup wrote: | Yeah if your stake isn't significant even in case of a huge | exit, you're not making even close to what you'd make at a | faang even in case of a massive ipo | landryraccoon wrote: | > how you get rich as an employee | | How do you get rich as an employee then? Because I've never | heard of any salaried line engineer getting rich _except_ | through winning the startup lottery. I sure have friends who | have done exceptionally well by working for the right startup | with the right acquisition however. | | Even Google engineers don't feel rich when they have to | stretch to afford the down payment on a house in Mountain | View. | ashtonkem wrote: | Even when they're not worthless, most startup options end up | being worth less than the salary that one could've gotten at | a non-startup. Last time I looked into it, and it was a while | ago, the median startup option package was exercised for a | profit of $30k, not nothing but far less than what one | could've gotten at a large company like ... Microsoft. | | Arguably the existence of several different types of stock | options has broken the startup option system, incentivizing | founders to play financial games with dilution and debt, and | separating their incentive structure from that of their | workers. Instead they now get paid with the VCs, which is bad | for the workers. | | Nothing is worth working like a dog though. That's always a | bad trade. | fallingknife wrote: | Are you sure that's the median? I would think that they are | worth 0 >50% of the time. | ojbyrne wrote: | 0 doesn't fit in the category "exercised for a profit." | ska wrote: | It might only be counting equity that returned something, | in which case 30k seems plausible. | BurningFrog wrote: | > _the median startup option package was exercised for a | profit of $30k_ | | That must be one of those cases where "median" and | "average" are very different. | lotsofpulp wrote: | There are many different kinds of averages. Median | average, arithmetic mean average, geometric mean average, | mode average. | | People frequently, and intentionally when it comes to | politics, use the word average to muddy the information | and evoke whatever emotion they want rather than specify | the type of average. | htrp wrote: | ^ This guy stats... | | In non normally distributed populations, the average is | misleading because of skew at either end of the curve. | onion2k wrote: | Which is exactly why you should look at the median. | BurningFrog wrote: | The median won't tell you the difference between 20% | chance of making $1k and $1M. | scruple wrote: | > most startup options end up being worth less than the | salary that one could've gotten at a non-startup | | I took a lower salary to work at a startup I "believed" in. | We were eventually acquired and my options were in the low | six-figures when exercised. I worked there for 6 years. If | I average the options profit and add it to my base salary, | I'd have still been underpaid in the local area for my | skills and experience level. And that's to say nothing of | what the event did to my taxes that year. | | > Nothing is worth working like a dog though. That's always | a bad trade. | | I never worked like a dog for the place in my story, at | least. It had a _very_ sane work /life balance. | ashtonkem wrote: | > I never worked like a dog for the place in my story, at | least. It had a very sane work/life balance. | | For sure not every single startup overworks it's | employees, and not every overworked employee works at a | startup. But there is a very common (but not universal!) | trend for startup employees to be encouraged to overwork | themselves so that their options will be worth more in | the long run. | | Your mileage may vary, as yours did. | Kranar wrote: | I don't know how common it actually is. You hear about | the startups that overwork employees far more than you | hear about startups where people have a good work life | balance, but there could be many reasons including the | big one being that happy people who live well balanced | lives don't tend to talk about it. | solidasparagus wrote: | Startups tend to have poor engineering management (due to | lack of time and experience) and that can easily lead to | overworking employees. | ignoramous wrote: | > _Equity is what builds wealth._ | | Comes with a lot of caveats, though [0]. Amazon and likely | Microsoft, has made many people wealthy, too. The surge in | BigTech stock prices over the years has been nothing short of | extraordinary, and there's no indication of that slowing down | as more enterprises move to the cloud and even more consumers | take to the Internet. | | Also, overworking like a start-up employee isn't necessarily | what a start-up is about: A start-up's value is in its under- | the-radar disruptive potential (that is, being dismissed by the | incumbents as a mere "toy"). That said, a start-up must capture | as much value it can (this is where working hard, being highly | flexible, and moving fast likely matters) from the market it | helps create, lest it be subject to irrelevance; but this part | comes a bit later in a start-up's life, at which point (the | start-up is no longer under-the-radar and investors are | circling around it like bees) its stock-options wouldn't likely | make an engineer "generational wealth" either (different story | for executives) but would have to work hard anyway. | | Read also: https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/ | | [0] https://mashable.com/tech/2854/how-amazons-97-million- | eero-a... | otabdeveloper4 wrote: | Monetary compensation is only part of the equation. | | Having "the guy who made PowerBI" on your resume can be worth | more than some stock options. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | I don't think the issue is that working at a pseudo startup | doesn't pay enough while a real startup does. Startups almost | always pay less than big companies. Even most of the successful | ones. For a worker, the pseudo startup is a great option. You | get a high base salary, and a large stock grant, and the high | growth stock we've seen at a lot of the big companies over a | reasonably long period. By the end of your vesting, your $125k | cash + $75k RSU = $200k/yr has (using apple growth, which is | reasonably FAANG representative) grown to $125k + $245k RSUs = | $370k/yr assuming no promotions and a linear vest. | | Equity does build wealth, and BigCo equity does it much more | reliably than a real startup. | ma2rten wrote: | You can have payouts proportional to success even in big | companies. Google famously payed $120M to Anthony Levandowski. | This is because there was an agreement in place to pay projects | in X based on the value that they create. | wwww4all wrote: | This has more to do with negotiation skills. Anthony | Levandowki also negotiated deal with Uber to pay him more | money. He knew his value and negotiated hard, and got paid by | 2 companies. | | Every engineer should learn from Anthony about understanding | the value and negotiating hard with companies. Companies will | pay up for in demand skills. | ryandrake wrote: | True, but this is a vanishingly small edge case. You | generally have to be a _certain_ person to negotiate | something like this with a big company. Surely the "Ninth | Cog Engineer From The Left" at Waymo will not have the | negotiating power to get this kind of profit-sharing or pay- | for-value comp package. | CobrastanJorji wrote: | I recall reading somewhere that Waymo had retention | problems due to many of the early engineers were given so | much money that they simply no longer cared to work. I | don't know how true that is, but I believe it. | g9yuayon wrote: | Many comments below focus on failures with a single startup. I | think it misses the point. Working for startups is risky, but | the key is to build a system that increases your accumulated | probability of success -- this is exactly why it's important to | live in the bay area and work for some startups there, at least | before the Covid-19. You get to see a large number of people | who didn't fund any company, but still became financially | independent by choosing to join the right companies at the | right time. You get to see how those people make their choices. | You get to see how those people decide to jump ship. You get to | build a social circle where you learn lots of first-hand | information about startups. There are a few simple steps that | worked well for many people (again, no guarantee of success, | but they do increase accumulated probability of finding the | right company). | | - You bet on product you love. Airbnb/Pinterest/Uber before | 2013, Netflix before 2010, FB before 2009, Google before 2003, | Databriks before 2017, Tesla before 2017. | | - You bet on sectors. SDN, gig economy, search, big data, and | etc. | | - You bet on company's productivity - the customers/engineer | grows exponentially without Uber-style marketing cost - | Instagram/WhatsApp; the company releases features faster than | they hire - Google; people deliver without working like a dog - | Netflix | | - You bet on people you know or you admire | | - You bet on the leaders in each sector | Spooky23 wrote: | It's a no true Scotsman scenario. Obviously working on a | "startup" in a big company isn't the same as starting a new | company. | | But... you get to enjoy the bigco benefits and security while | avoiding a lot of bigco bullshit. I did something like this in | a public sector org. We got to do something new and exciting, | many of the team ended up getting promoted, and the big shots | got to pay themselves on the back too. We did not get rich, but | we did not risk much. | | Generally speaking, if you want to build wealth on a short | horizon, working for someone is the hardest path. | Mauricebranagh wrote: | Lol I remember volunteering for a ground breaking RAD / DSDM | ? Agile web project in 94. | | BT gave me a PS25 pound voucher which I put together with my | previous projects PS25 voucher and brought a diamond Rio MP3 | player. | decebalus1 wrote: | > Startups work because you have skin in the game, when you | build something people want, you get to reap rewards | proportional to it. | | Eh... not really. Especially not for the rank-and-file | employees. Most don't get proportional rewards even if the | company exits successfully. Unless you're a founder or one of | the early employees, for the high percentile of successful | startups, rewards are proportional with what you'd have gotten | at FAANG companies during the same time. | | Not to diminish your experience, but I think the idea there was | that you get to work on something 'risky' but regardless of its | success you'll still get your paycheck, health insurance | benefits. And if it goes belly up, you can just do a lateral | move to Azure or whatever instead of worrying about the very | existence of the company. | Uehreka wrote: | This is also an issue I've seen with companies that began as | startups, but then transitioned into the "big company" phase: | Founders and early employees complain that "when we were | getting started, we could've gotten this feature done in a | week! What's taking so long?" There tends to be frustration | that employees won't work nights and weekends, even though | their work could "turn this company into the next Amazon!" | | When you bring up the fact that the difference is that they | have equity and you don't, and that they would materially | benefit from growth but you wouldn't, they tend to get grumpy. | But they never do have a better answer. | netfortius wrote: | It depends, i.e. I would not be so definitive on the "no such | thing" part, for sure. I witnessed (and enjoyed) such a startup | experience, myself, a few years back, when Arity came into | existence, from "under and within" Allstate. Spending even one | single day working in Northbrook (Allstate HQ), and another one @ | the Mart, in Chicago (Arity office), and you could immediately | tell the two worlds apart. | softwaredoug wrote: | Maybe you can't have startups at big companies, but you can look | at your career and personal brand like an entrepreneur. Who are | your customers/employers? What market niche are you capturing? | How good are you at demonstrating your leadership in that niche? | What do you need to change to put yourself in a better position | with current/potential employers? | frellus wrote: | I was in a "startup inside a <mid-sized> Company" (about 5 years | old at that point, pre-IPO) a few years back. It operated | independently, separate building, separate recruiting with a | large amount of equity compared to the main company. | | The benefits were that we could hire major talent who wanted to | take some risk but not complete risk (i.e. our funding was | "secured"), politics were completely removed, we operated in | semi-stealth and we had an already established base of customers | to do POCs and get feedback from. It was successful and post-IPO | of the main company it merged fully and became a fully branded | product under the same umbrella. It was almost like a Cisco-style | "spin-out-spin-in" but way less equity. | | The downside was if the project failed for technical risk | reasons, we would all be axed, of course, and the partially | vested equity wouldn't have been worth as much of course. | | I think really think the biggest benefit was the removal of | politics and distractions from the main company. Other large | companies (Ex. Oracle) you cannot innovate internally unless you | do it faster than someone can find it and kill it. After a | company reaches a certain size and maturity, the only growth is | through M&As not through internal innovation and taking risks | IMHO. | ajb wrote: | I worked for a startup within another company. It got spun out | and the CEO used it as his own escape hatch, while selling off | the remaining parts of the original company. The startup had a | successful exit, although it didn't become a unicorn. | | Any time someone makes a categorical statement like these, you | know it's not wholly true. There are more permutations to the | real world than anyone can think of up front. | johannes1234321 wrote: | I think there is a key point to this: | | Being a startup in a large corp works if you are the "famous" | manager inside the corp and get your personal playing ground | (skunk works?) project and are building something new. | | It works less, when you are being acquired and want to keep | your independence. When acquiring the acquirer will look close | at you to align the acquired product with the corporate | interests. | rmac wrote: | this topic has been beaten to death (read these) | | https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2615.The_Innovator_s_Dil... | https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11797471-the-idea-factor... | | you have to ask yourself: why would the most talented and/or | visionary and/or defiant individuals want to stay at a large | company to build new products? Be it in Labs, Spin-outs, Spin- | ins, corporate accelerators, skunkworks projects, or what have | you. The craziest of the crazy will go out on their own and try | to build something. Most will fail. Those that persist eventually | combine luck+opportunity and turn their hallucinations into | mainstream-disruptive innovations. | jackric wrote: | Flagged for nag-wall. Can't see the whole article | jonas_kgomo wrote: | open in incognito | corty wrote: | I'm not sure why everyone seems so focused on the cafeteria | thing. I'm not sure people and their attitudes towards amenities | are really the problem here. | | From my understanding, the differerence is the companywide | attitude to risk. A startup has a "grow at any cost, or maybe | perish" attitude. If things go south, bankruptcy will take care | of the leftover excess risk (barring criminal charges). A bigco | cannot easily go bankrupt, even less a single department. There | are tons and tons of capital to eat through if the accumulated | risk is realized in cost. So a bigco has to do something about | that risk somehow, because most of the company wants to keep what | capital it has, only a small part of it really wants to risk | things. So the only means to have a situation where you don't | risk bigco for a single department is not making it a department. | Make it a Ltd. in a holding or something. | captainmuon wrote: | If people really think of founding enterprises as a gamble with | potential infinite reward, but limited downside (as bankrupcy | will take care of it), I would say our economy has a problem... | franciscop wrote: | Why? Limited downside does not mean small, it just means | limited. It can perfectly destroy a person's finances if they | invest all their lifesavings in it. And the reward for a | company is _normally_ a % of how much value they provide to | their customers (yes, I know, not always, but generally that | 's true). Unbounded does not mean infinite. | chrisco255 wrote: | It's this that makes entrepreneurship more abundant in the | first place. If you have an economy with no risk taking you | have no growth and no dynamism. Sure, 80-90% of businesses | will fail, it's essential that people can fail without too | much personal risk after all, but the 1 in 100 businesses | that go onto grow to employ hundreds or thousands thanks to | an effective business model are more than enough to make up | for the failures. When someone fails in a startup it's not | like they drop out of the economy altogether. Its not like | they learned nothing. They go on to become effective | employees at other companies, producing value there. | mathattack wrote: | It's a combination of risk and forced standardization. | | Big companies try to standardize to allow C players to perform | as Bs. This crushes As. | rightbyte wrote: | I have yet to see this mythical standardization on big | companies. | DoofusOfDeath wrote: | > So the only means to have a situation where you don't risk | bigco for a single department is not making it a department. | Make it a Ltd. in a holding or something. | | I was thinking that as well. Can anyone explain why this isn't | common practice? | yowlingcat wrote: | > I was thinking that as well. Can anyone explain why this | isn't common practice? | | If you squint a little bit, this is exactly what the whole | premise of corporate VC is. Take the funds that you'd | allocate to long shots and operate as a VC would, provide | strategic distribution where you can add value as a bigco, | etc. Problem here is that compared to pure VCs you risk | portfolio conflict in a different way that may not be as | attractive to founders, but at least it's viable. | johannes1234321 wrote: | The thing with the cafeteria is that it reflects company | culture. If you in the office sit at a desk in the Google | search engine area or youtube or Waymo is hardly noticable. | People have settled in an if the neighboring teams go home at | "normal" times, the "startup" team will go home at those times. | Also you have a hard time to keep the small team culture when | directly embedded. And then corporates encourage changing jobs | internal over leaving and hiring somebody else, which means | that there are ties on all levels. Pulling out and having your | own startup culture is hard. The cafeteria symbolizes that, as | it is a social place and culture to large parts is a social | thing. | watwut wrote: | So like, the whole startup thing boils down to being at work | late and working overtime, despite all the studies on crunch | showing it is inefficient and less productive? | johannes1234321 wrote: | I think that summary is too narrow (i.e. the whole team, | maybe even as "us vs. them" thing etc. are part of culture) | but yes, for many of those startup guys "do 'hard' work, | push things" seems to be an important piece and that's a | reason for me to keep my distance. | tony0x02 wrote: | I forgot where I read it but I think statistics show that | innovation at BigCo has only succeeded when the team is | located at a separate location. | gwbas1c wrote: | IMO, the bigger issue is that many people don't know what a | startup is. Yet, as a culture we glorify a "startup." Everyone | wants to work for one, even though they don't really know the | clear line between a startup and an exit. | | I remember seeing billboards in Silicon Valley. They were from | AOL, trying to recruit. They said, "You're the startup, we're the | VC." At the time, AOL had no defining characteristic that made it | appear like a startup, even for people who don't fully understand | what a startup is. | | Another time, I was in a post-acquisition "startup." I recognized | the situation and focused on the area with clear product-market | fit. The "CEO" tried to continue to find new product-market fits | and blew through our R&D budget. (The R&D budget was supposed to | improve the existing product, not find new ones.) When the | situation came to a head, only people who worked on the clear | product-market fit area remained. (Everyone who behaved like we | were a "startup" was let go.) | Apocryphon wrote: | It's also complicated by how in the 2010s we saw the rise of | unicorns that could amass huge amounts of funding, and remain | late-stage startups for long indefinite amounts of time. Was | AirBnB really a startup, even a late-stage startup, in 2019? | For the average employee, was the experience any different from | working at FAANG? | theqult wrote: | Thanks Captain Obvious | hacknat wrote: | Google is very aware of this, which is why Google Ventures is a | thing. It's much better, ironically, to put yourself in a | position to only provide benefits to another company and prevent | yourself from extracting any benefit for yourself. | dkobia wrote: | I worked in a startup lab within a huge multinational company. In | many ways it felt like a startup because we had very limited | runway to incubate and commercialize our ideas, so that | definitely put the fire under our feet. | | Despite an effort to firewall us from the larger organization the | culture and processes of the mothership always seemed to leak in | and contaminate the organic startup flows. Additionally a large | organization is extremely risk averse unlike a real startup and | this manifests itself in a multitude of ways. | nabla9 wrote: | In economics there is a research subject called "Theory of the | firm". In 2016 Holmstrom and Milgrom got Economics Nobel for | their research of theory of contracting and incentives especially | as applied to the theory of the firm. It's theory that is | actually interesting to read. They have papers like: The firm as | an incentive system, The Boundaries of the Firm, Incentive | Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design, An Economic Theory of | Promises, The Firm as a Subeconomy, | anthony_r wrote: | What exactly is a startup here? | | (serious question) | yters wrote: | Sometimes it is analogous, such as creating a new internal | product and trying to get internal customers. The best part is if | the effort fails I still keep my job and salary. On the other | hand if it succeeds I can get a promotion and raise. Much less | risk than real world startup, and better expected payoff. | ckgjm wrote: | The mindset would be very different. There's always a sense of | urgency to get things done with the realisation that there's no | safety net. You ask yourself different questions going to work | and that drives different level of passion. | drewzero1 wrote: | This reminds me of the story of Saturn within General Motors. As | I understand it, it was created to compete with popular imports | like Honda and was given a long leash from GM to be "a different | kind of car company" (in the words of their marketing). The first | generation of cars were a lot different from any of GM's previous | compact offerings. GM started reining in Saturn and moving toward | badge engineering. Eventually it became the same kind of car | company, because at the very top it always was. | cs02rm0 wrote: | It's just big company talk to pretend they're cool and | innovative. Obviously ridiculous garbage that probably got | someone a good annual review score. | | A small company I was working with had heard that IBM, who had a | customer in common, were operating some sort of "garage" thing | that the customer really liked. Rumours were flying around, | someone had heard it was a video conferencing app, they were | desperate to know more about this secret sauce. | | Eventually I got to speak to an opposite number from them on a | piece of work that joined with our own. They were calling any | team of people a garage (because of the Amazon, Apple, etc | stories). That's all it was, just a different word for team, like | toddlers playing let's pretend. | theta_d wrote: | When I worked at IBM Cloud they copied the Spotify model of | squads and tribes and guilds. I remember having to watch a | video about it on my first day. | namdnay wrote: | Woah I think we've stumbled on something here.. Spotify seem | to be the source/example of all these new management fads. I | remember having to sit through that hand-drawn sketch video | (is there a name for these things?) describing how Spotify | does SAFe (if you don't know what this is, pretend you never | read it and continue your life as usual, please) and how | awesome it is and why we all need to do it. | Qwertious wrote: | What sort of thing is SAFe? Is it some sort of unsuccessful | corporate pantomime of a successful practice? | kthejoker2 wrote: | The A stands for Agile if that gives you a clue ... | shp0ngle wrote: | it's "scaled agile framework". | | Move on. | azemetre wrote: | Opinions are my own, but it's basically a worst version | of agile (safe = scaled agile framework) that removes all | autonomy from teams and gives upper management/leadership | more power in making decisions at the team level. | | If you never heard of Allen Holub look him up on | YouTube/Twitter. He's one of the same voices when it | comes to agile frameworks. | 2sk21 wrote: | Indeed, it was the same in the Watson group where I worked | about 6 years ago. It was pure cargo cult activity that | ultimately resulted in much lower productivity. | jonfw wrote: | I actually liked my experience with the guild structure, as | somebody new to the industry. I had my specialty, was the | leader in my team in my particular specialty, but that's | mostly because I was the only one in my team with the | specialty. The guild structure got me the opportunity to | network with people who were more experienced in that area | lonesword wrote: | When I worked at a startup we copied the Spotify model as | well. We called it "functional teams" and so on but the idea | was the same - we watched the spotify videos as well. To be | honest it helped. I think this is a point in IBM's favor | because they saw something better, and adopted it even though | "it was not invented here". | laputan_machine wrote: | Where I work we have teams and guilds. Guilds operate every | other Friday, they work on cross-team concepts (e.g. | automation, ai/ml, security, open source). Some guilds work | better than others. The downside is around ownership (e.g. A | guild creates a useful tool that ends up being used | throughout the org, who fixes the critical bugs that arise?) | | We originally cargo-culted the Spotify model, but changed it | to fit how we want to work, it seems OK. | jonfw wrote: | I worked within IBM garage, it's not 'any team of people', it's | a specific organization that mostly does services work. Their | 'secret sauce' is that they're trying to consult on technology | and company culture at the same time, in line with Conway's | lay. | | I.E. If you want to be more agile you'll want to adopt CI/CD, | if you want micro services you'll want smaller more autonomous | dev teams. | mrcwinn wrote: | Former CEO at Creative Market here (though at the time, I was VP | Eng). Call me an optimist, but I believe this can work, though I | accept the premise of the headline generally. | | We were acquired by Autodesk in 2013. We may make for an odd case | study: we had a very unique opportunity to spin out and return to | be an independent startup in 2017, thanks to Autodesk's support - | not to mention the leadership of our co-founding CEO at the time. | (Parenthetically, I could write a book about acquisitions and | spinouts, but that's for another day.) | | During my time at Autodesk, we were very much a "startup within a | big company." They wanted us to continue doing what we do, | because it was clearly working. We continued to grow. We | continued to have more resources and support thanks to Autodesk. | We found ways to preserve our culture, but also adopt some of | Autodesk's. We built relationships and got to know people in | other business units. We never felt like there was some ulterior | motive or felt our hand forced. | | There are disadvantages, sure, but I think it would lack nuance | to pin all that blame on the acquiring company. Relationships are | a two-way street. If you're going to sell, I think it's incumbent | on the founders to normalize being proud of being a part of that | bigger company. I think it's okay to say, we're going to change | and we're going to reach out and connect with the larger | organization. It may not be helpful to try to be the "pirates" | within the organization, like the Mac team during Jobs' first | stint. It's isolating and corrosive to be the smaller piece of | the puzzle, yet view yourself as the greater cause. | | People can criticize big companies. In many cases, that criticism | is warranted, fair, and important if we're going to increase | competition and innovation. For my own part, looking back on my | time there, I always felt valued and respected as an Autodesk | employee. I was always proud to hold my employee badge. | Fede_V wrote: | If you are a great engineer that can get a job at FAAG, joining a | start up is almost never worth it from a strictly financial point | of view. | | 17 years ago, Paul Graham was able to post this essay: | http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html - nowadays, the | compensation in tech has shifted upwards so much | (https://www.levels.fyi/) - that start ups are just not | competitive when you adjust for a risk premium. Finance captures | this concept using metrics such as the Sharpe ratio | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpe_ratio) - which measures how | much extra returns you are getting in exchange for the additional | risk you take on. For start ups - your expected returns are | lower, and the risk is very significantly higher. | | Are there other great reasons to join start ups? Absolutely: | several start ups are working on exceptionally cool science | problems, some are solving tasks that will make a meaningful | improvement in the lives of people | (https://detroitwaterproject.org/, etc), some people just prefer | working in a small company, you get a chance to work with your | friends - but - if you are going to work for a generic SAAS | company, don't accept a pay cut. | | The VC that's financing your start up evaluates their investments | with a spreadsheet and zero affection. Ask them how they | sacrifice their own income to work on more interesting work, and | they'll (politely) laugh in your face. | lcfcjs wrote: | What's a FAAG? | caturopath wrote: | Big tech salaries are at this point high enough that even with | some acquisitions, I see folks getting payoffs that didn't | catch them up to where they'd be financially if they went the | big tech route. | k__ wrote: | The main problem I see is ownership. | | If you don't really own your company, you won't ever behave as if | you owned it. | | It's basically a less rigid version of a big corp job, not more, | not less. Which isn't bad, big corps have to rejuvenate | themselves in some way, but selling it people as a "win-win" | because they get to work in a big corp AND do a startup is a | simply a lie. | JackFr wrote: | There is no such thing as "a startup within a big company" on | it's face is a tautology, so we can assume the author was not | speaking literally. | | So if he's not speaking literally, what does 'startup' mean? Is | it characterized by the ownership structure? The maturity of the | market? The culture of the team? The flexibility and nimbleness | of the management team to pivot and move targets? | | Since none of this is clear I think its possible that there is | some disagreement even with the best intentions on both sides. | muglug wrote: | I know this is not what the article is talking about, but there | have been some success stories of companies incubating startups. | An obvious example is Tinder, incubated at IAC. | redis_mlc wrote: | I'm not sure Tindr is a good example, since it has a more | complicated founding history and IAC was initially not the sole | owner: | | > In March 2014, media and internet conglomerate IAC increased | its majority stake in Tinder | | Also, IAC (Match Group) owns most of the top US dating sites, | so they were already in the dating market. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinder_(app) | ignoramous wrote: | With all due respect to the author, I think the article kind of | romanticizes start-up founders and their perils. | | Amazon famously dubs itself with being the biggest startup in the | world. There's a company that espouses Clay Christensen's | philosophy of building enduring businesses. Over the years, a lot | has been said and written about how Amazon manages to do it, I | mean, this is better demonstrated by Jeff, its founder, whose | wealth went from $10B in 1997 to $1B in 2002/3, but still bet big | on AWS (2003), Prime (2005), and Kindle (2007) in an | unprecedented run of series of innovations that'd could have | killed the company. | | -- | | "working backwards" | | I want to draw some parallels to the YC application process with | how Amazon operates, from what I've read and what I've | experienced as an ex-employee: | | A lot of product development is funded at Amazon after review of | what's called a PR/FAQ doc [0] (this is the "working backwards | from the customer" part). The PR needs to clearly articulate in a | headline or two what the product is about; whilst the first | paragraph must present a complete summary of what the product | would be in its v1 form at launch. The next few paragraphs detail | the current problem and the proposed solution interlaced by | imaginary quotes from would-be customers; and the concluding | paragraph has a clear call-to-action on exactly how customers can | make use of the proposed solution. | | If you've ever filled out a YC form, you'd find yourself going | through a similar exercise. | | And on what merits is a product funded [1]? | | - If it works, would it be really big? | | - Is the customer / target market well-served today? | | - What in Amazon's approach is the key differentiator? And is | that compelling enough? | | - Should / can Amazon build it in-house, or do they need to buy | some / all of the expertise? | | Again, pretty similar to the process YC has [2]. | | -- | | "two-pizza teams" [3] | | The team that's put together to run is encouraged to own the | product end-to-end ("single-threaded owners" aka STOs), in the | truest sense of the word: That is they're free to duplicate | effort, not be beholden to another team's priorities, build | whatever they need to, buy whatever they need to, and so on... | Other STOs running existing but overlapping business or | businesses at the risk of being cannibalized by this newer one do | not absolutely get any say. This approach to incubating newer | products within Amazon is what led them to build AWS in the first | place, because they didn't want various internal engineering | teams to be truly duplicating their efforts in building | "undifferentiated parts of their businesses" which, on the | Internet, is building all that Infrastructure required to start | small and yet be able to scale. AWS, interestingly, itself was | removed / isolated from Amazon's Infrastructure team at the time | and was completely a separate under-taking (there's probably a | Harvard case-study in there somewhere demonstrating the | effectiveness of STOs). | | -- | | "disrupt yourself" | | The other thing Amazon does is it is truly customer-focused as | opposed to product-focused or competitor-focused. If I were to | take the example of Android: How many customers do Google have a | direct line to? If you are a FireOS user, you could chat with | customer service about its annoyances, send an email to kindle- | feedback@ or even escalate it to jeff@ and all those complaints | are root-caused and fixed to whatever extent deemed necessary, | with FireOS MayDay being an extreme example of this customer- | obsession. Amazon believes in listening to its customers and | disrupting its own cash-cows if it means it delivers value to the | customer. No one flinches a bit in taking these decisions. | | -- | | "you can't fight gravity" [4] | | As opposed to reacting technology changes constantly and riding | the wave, Bezos instead believed in focusing on universal | constants (like gravity) that never change: For example, for | Amazon's e-commerce business, those constants are customers would | always want lower prices, larger selection, and faster | deliveries". That was never going to change. But this simple | framework then lets his management team decide on what bets to | take with respect to technologies that help move the needle in | the right direction, because if they don't, someone else will eat | their lunch by doing those three things. | | -- | | "the best way to predict the future is to invent it" | | To truly create an atmosphere of invention within Amazon, there | are a lot of processes in-place, to make sure bureaucracy ("a | single no" vs "a lot of yes") doesn't kill a promising idea. Of | course, there's nuisance here, in that some decisions need to be | carefully vetted ("one-way doors") vs ones that needn't be ("two- | way doors") and the key is knowing which is which (and escalate | when in doubt). | | -- | | "simplify" | | If you follow AWS, you'd know how primitive and lacking the v1s | really are: For instance, Lambda launched with just NodeJS | support with no observability story of note, no "local | development" environment, no support for other runtimes, and just | 1 minute of execution time. This stems from the PR/FAQ process | (distill down the v1 to the absolute minimum but deliver | comprehensive value to the under-served) and two-pizza teams (too | many resources to work on a problem is never approved of, so it | is paramount to do things that don't scale for the v1). | | -- | | This isn't to say Amazon hasn't been disrupted at all: It has | been, by instacart, daipers.com, doordash among some examples | that come to mind. | | I am no expert (either in the ways of the likes of Amazon or the | nimble start-ups), but I believe that to reduce innovation / | invention being a playground for start-ups just because they've | no access to a "fancy cafeteria" is telling half the story [5] | and probably misinterpreting symptoms for cause. | | [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFdpBqmDpzM | | [1] https://www.hbs.edu/forum-for-growth-and- | innovation/podcasts... | | [2] YC also fund all sorts of "uninteresting" ideas too (from | outside, what looks like a spread and pray, but is likely a | heuristic that they are working off of from). | | [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XavPl5t9dS8 | | [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4MtQGRIIuA | | [5] I mean, at the end of the day, Waymo wasn't even a startup by | the time Google acquired it and also it isn't like Google doesn't | have a track record of successful acquisitions... | [deleted] | nojito wrote: | This isn't true. The digital service team for the US Government | is indistinguishable from a high quality startup/consultancy that | goes around and solves pretty cool problems in modern ways. | rgblambda wrote: | Can you give some examples of those projects? I would have | thought a government in house software team would be doing | things like replacing paper forms with web forms and replacing | old COBOL applications with Java, along with being an approval | board for government contracts. | jonas_kgomo wrote: | A startup studio is essentially this. Also, every big company has | a X for Startups, plus open-source projects. Most big companies | derisk by acquiring competitors, you can think of that as a | startup inside a big company. | | * where X is an element of FAAMG | patatino wrote: | If you sell your company for millions/billions to a FAANG | company, stop lying to yourself, you did it for the money, which | is fine. Pack up your things and do something else with that | money | aeoleonn wrote: | The 4000 person video game company I work at, has in some of its | job descriptions something about "understands what it's like to | move at a fast paced startup" | | yet, the company: | | - was founded in early 2000's | | - has about 4,000 employees | | - from my experience, does not move fast. too much bureaucracy & | too many management-compliance related tasks impede developer | speed, focus, and context-stability. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-02-18 23:00 UTC)