[HN Gopher] American tech giants are making life tough for start... ___________________________________________________________________ American tech giants are making life tough for startups (2018) Author : ddtaylor Score : 129 points Date : 2022-06-02 17:15 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.economist.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com) | formerkrogemp wrote: | How have conditions changed at all in the past 4 years? | honkler wrote: | and these "startups" are making life tough for small businesses | (mom and pop stores). No sympathy from me. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | yeah, just thinking about all the artisanal home grown mom and | pop run email autocompleting companies that EasyEmail was | putting out of business gives me the heebie-jeebies. | Apocryphon wrote: | Mailchimp was a little like that, as it was started in 2001, | between tech bubbles, and was mostly a side project for | years. | | https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2018/10/08/the- | new-a... | mourinhoalex wrote: | Big companies also make it hard for mom and pop stores? In the | end competition is tough and when there are new players old | ones suffer. | honkler wrote: | point is that it doesn't matter which one of them wins. Both | screw over working class people. | spideymans wrote: | How? Are you talking about real estate prices? | honkler wrote: | I'm thinking of so called "disruption" associated with | startups. Whose lifestyle is actually disrupted? The have- | nots. | frozenport wrote: | >> buy young firms that might challenge them | | This is not the worst outcome for a startup | actionablefiber wrote: | It might be a nice payday for the founders but it's terrible | for the business environment. It's basically a bribe to stop | operating in that sector. Sure, it beats out Microsoft churning | out the Teams to your Slack/Loop to your Notion, then rolling | it into 365 and eating your enterprise market share alive | without so much as a consolation prize, but as a user any time | a great product hits the market, no matter how much I like it I | have to worry if I can trust the company to be around for the | long haul and stick to their offering. | nonrandomstring wrote: | > what if in addition to privacy policy and terms documents, | each online property has an acquisition term | | > It might be a nice payday for the founders but it's | terrible for the business environment. | | At the founding stage we tend to choose from highly quantised | "types" of company, usually from a boilerplate legal | template; limited liability, independent trading company, | partnership, charity, non-profit and suchlike. I am no expert | in company law, but as far as I know, at least in the UK, | "Articles of Incorporation" (the charter of the company) can | be almost _anything_ that 's legal. | | Hence I've long been of the opinion that founders should | build-in "non-acquisition" clauses, making it impossible for | predators to simply scoop up a promising company, perhaps for | some fixed period like 10 or 20 years. That would solve some | of the issues under discussion here. It would also change the | ecology and motivations within which companies are created, | grown and invested in. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | >Hence I've long been of the opinion that founders should | build-in "non-acquisition" clauses, making it impossible | for predators to simply scoop up a promising company | | This sounds good and all, and I would be tempted to do it, | but a non-acquisition clause does not prevent the big | companies from cloning you either. | al_borland wrote: | >as a user any time a great product hits the market, no | matter how much I like it I have to worry if I can trust the | company to be around for the long haul and stick to their | offering. | | I still get upset about what Google did to Sparrow. I'm | extremely gun shy when trying things these days. I don't want | to like new products or get used to their features, because I | don't trust they will be along for the long-haul. | | This can be an issue even without acquisitions, as companies | can simply go out of business. With the current business | model of "take on debt until acquired or SPAC", it doesn't | give me much confidence in the long-term prospects of many | new tech companies. The first thing I always look for is how | they are making money. If they don't have an answer to that | question, I generally stay away. | scarface74 wrote: | The entire "business" of startups is to get acquired. Few | expect to go public. | nonrandomstring wrote: | I think we might more accurately say; the entire "business" | of some _investors_ is to get companies acquired. That 's | not the same motive as seen from inside the startup. And | indeed, it's only _some_ investors. I believe there are | plenty who are in it for the long game, or are far more | strategic in terms of ROI. | scarface74 wrote: | Once the startup takes investor funding, it's irrelevant | what those inside the startup want. | | That being said, we all go to work to exchange labor for | money. It's naive for employees to see working for any | for profit company as anything more than just a financial | transaction. | | Investors know that the chances of a startup to go public | and then be profitable enough to have long term stock | gains is infinitesimally small. | | Can you name one startup that has been really successful | - ie throwing off crazy profits and margins since | Facebook? | | Investors aren't interested in "lifestyle businesses". | jdsully wrote: | > Once the startup takes investor funding, it's | irrelevant what those inside the startup want. | | It really depends on the ownership structure, and that | will depend on leverage at the time of fundraising. YC | companies are unlikely to give up control until Series B | (but like all things your mileage may vary). | itsgrimetime wrote: | Yeah but is it good for competition? | outside1234 wrote: | No but it is not exactly tough for the startup :) | spaetzleesser wrote: | But a bad outcome for the economy overall. In the medical | industry this is extreme. The startup scene is basically a | feeder pipeline for the big guys. Nobody even tries to start a | self sustaining business. | louniks wrote: | I wonder if this can be viewed as (yet another?) example of | companies externalizing the negatives. Pollution is the | classic example, both during manufacture and at the end of | the lifecycle. In this case, it would be financial risk. | Founders bootstrap a start-up, either with their own money or | outside investors, and these folks carry all the risk. The | established players can safely wait until the startup either | fails or succeeds, and buy into a sure thing in the latter | case. | mateo411 wrote: | I'm not sure about that. An acquisition is a risky thing | for a company to do as well. It's never a sure thing and | correctly pricing the acquisition or predicting if the | company will be successful with the acquisition is also not | guaranteed or easy. | nijave wrote: | For some highly regulated industries, it's hard to bring | small products to market. In banking, there are tiered | regulations based on your size (in the U.S.) so there's | more overhead for large companies | lotsofpulp wrote: | I think it is simply a consequence of technology enabling | instant global communications and decreasing marginal costs | precipitously giving bigger players an enormous advantage. | riazrizvi wrote: | We made them an offer they couldn't refuse. | daniel-cussen wrote: | Yeah I didn't get what that meant in the Godfather movie, but | I got it when I read the book (which is amazing, so so good, | not as good as the movie but still). | | It's not an offer if it can't be refused, it's just theft. | mateo411 wrote: | > it's just theft. | | and extortion. | daniel-cussen wrote: | Yes, both. | jthacker wrote: | I'm unable to read the article due to the paywall, but if the | first paragraph is indicative of the thesis, then it is "startups | that build incremental functionality on top of existing products | are upset when the company improves their product with the same | functionality". I'd say there are two issues at play here: 1. The | large Tech companies are too big and do too many things. They | should be broken up for no other reason than to protect the | public from their eventual collapse or abuse of power. 2. As a | startup, don't build an incremental product that can easily be | scooped by a competitor, especially if that competitor is a mega | corporation. | zeruch wrote: | "s a startup, don't build an incremental product that can | easily be scooped by a competitor" unless that's the goal (and | sometimes it is). | ren_engineer wrote: | the amount of data Google and Facebook have isn't talked about | enough in this context, they most likely have internal tools that | allow them to project which startups are becoming successful and | either copy them early or just acquire them before the startup | itself realizes how much potential they have | | Instagram acquisition for 1 billion as an example was a steal in | hindsight, I bet facebook had more accurate forecasts for their | growth than Instagram itself. I know Facebook did get some bad PR | for collecting user data via a VPN app, but they didn't face any | legal consequences- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onavo | | This doesn't even address how at a societal level these companies | can basically create self-fulfilling prophecies by manipulating | what stories and information is shown to people | | also makes me wonder about AWS/Amazon and what their policy is | around copying some of their customers. They obviously fork or | outright deploy managed open source projects to compete with | them. I know Walmart doesn't let any of their suppliers use AWS | either. | jethkl wrote: | In prior life, I worked at place where we had access to data | that contained user searches. We could plainly see that google | searches, due to autocomplete, "quantize" results in a way that | bing and others don't. The result is that google searches are | almost inorganic crafted things, and they contain unusual | artifacts. The impact on society is definitely real. | guerrilla wrote: | > The impact on society is definitely real. | | What impact do you mean and how do you know? | jethkl wrote: | For "what" -- I don't specify. Regarding "how I know", I | start with several premises: | | 1) search engines are the dominant way to find information | now. | | 2) conservatively, >=80% of searches in US are through | google. | | 3) google is not a passive observer of user search queries, | but instead actively suggests queries to users. | | It follows that there must be some impact. The "engagement" | effect is this: I start a search for Depeche Mode, but get | distracted by suggestions for J Depp. In contrast, DDG | suggests Depakote, Depression, Dept of Revenue and a few | other things. Other search engines seem to be less | aggressive. | guerrilla wrote: | > For "what" -- I don't specify. | | Yeah, that's why I'm asking... | jethkl wrote: | There is hint of "what" at end of my previous comment, | but no larger assertion is made. | guerrilla wrote: | I wasn't asking for a hint, I was asking what you meant. | tristor wrote: | I've actually been wondering about this for years. Nearly every | startup I've worked at used Google Apps and put all their | strategy documents and trade secrets into platforms owned and | operated by Google. I'm sure there's something that assuages | this concern in the contracts, just as I'm equally sure there's | some clause that completely invalidates that and lets Google do | whatever they want. I wonder if they actually do mine their | data to identify startups for acquisition / competition, they | certainly are incentivized to do so. | skohan wrote: | This is something I wonder about Amazon/Google/Microsoft | specifically: since they're hosting basically every startup, | how much are they able to leverage that data to their own | benefit? AWS alone must have quite a detailed insight into | which products and services are gaining traction just based on | traffic data, or even how much they're billing customers. | | To what extent are they able to leverage that? | ozzythecat wrote: | 10+ year Amazon veteran. | | AWS has very strict rules around accessing any kind of | customer data. All of Amazon has some pretty significant red | tape and hurdles to get security clearance to launch any | piece of working software. No, that won't stop a shitty | product manager from looking over sales data to figure out if | a certain business is worth exploiting, but accessing AWS | customer data is an entirely different ball game. It's like: | jumping over a fence vs trying to break into Area 51. | | I can almost guarantee that this egregious level of snooping | on AWS customer data would never happen, and if somehow it | did happen, it's a nefarious individual with SIGNIFICANT | authority to influence entire teams to extract, analyze, and | get insights from this data. Again, I don't think anyone at | Amazons leadership is that insane to put their entire | professional career in jeopardy, for something that someone | would have a 100% guaranteed leak. | | The people working there aren't exactly idiots who'd easily | fall in line and do something like this. | | I'd like to be clear - I'm not defending Amazon. I no longer | work there, and for what it's worth, I think it's a miserable | place to work. A culture of back stabbing, inventing | abstractions to drive promotions, people literally crying, | disconnected leaders focused more on empire building to get | promotions instead of doing what's actually right for | customers. Even then, the notion that AWS could line up | teams, even on a secret project to do something so disdainful | is an extreme stretch. | ren_engineer wrote: | you wouldn't need customer data, you can just look at basic | infrastructure stats or even how much they are spending on | AWS over time and estimate a startups growth and revenue. | AWS rolls out clones of various developer tool startups all | the time | skohan wrote: | But I don't mean they would have to access customer data. | If, for instance, they just took a look at how much they | were billing certain clients for bandwidth over time, they | could already use that as a reasonable growth metric. Do | you know for a fact that they don't do that? | | I know for instance they do something similar in terms of | ripping off successful products on Amazon.com as Amazon | Basics. | minsc_and_boo wrote: | Amazon has been caught copying customer products to sell as | their own before [1], and AWS has been accused more than | once of doing the same [2]. | | It's a pattern of behavior from Amazon, and given their | backstabbing, cut throat culture (that you mentioned) isn't | it fair to say that it's possible for Amazon employees | looking to get ahead at all costs would violate those | strict rules? | | [1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special- | report/amazon-i... | | [2] https://archive.ph/M7hLF | guelo wrote: | It could be that Amazon treats AWS differently than their | retail business. Any AWS data stealing scandal could | easily drive away multi-million dollar contracts. But | they've gone through many retail scandals without | seemingly affecting anything. | scarface74 wrote: | You're talking about something completely different. This | wasn't AWS having access to customer workloads. I am | current employee at AWS. The amount of alarm bells that | would go off, audits and complicity by line level | employees to make this feasible and it not come out is | astronomical. | azemetre wrote: | I feel like words are very cheap, unless there's literal | government regulation and making it a felony, it's all | meaningless. | | What government regulations actually prevent this? | __derek__ wrote: | The incentives aren't really there. There's a lot more money | in selling infrastructure than in (poorly) copying some B2C | application. | skohan wrote: | What about for deciding which SAAS application to emulate | as a first-party service? | __derek__ wrote: | That's fair, but I think it's also the case there: | Salesforce, Twilio, and Snowflake are much better as | customers than as competitors. | throwaway_1928 wrote: | Given that Amazon is known for knocking off physical brands | belonging to its 'retail partners' in its online store and | then undercutting and outranking the originals [1], why would | they not do the same with software hosted on AWS? | | A lot of AWS itself is just copied open source projects [2]. | | Google does the same thing with Yelp [3]. | | [1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special- | report/amazon-i... | | [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/technology/amazon-aws- | clo... | | [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/technology/yelp- | google-eu... | jedberg wrote: | My friend worked in ops at Google, and they had super strict | rules about accessing customer data (basically you never | could) and strict monitoring around access. Even if someone | gave you permission you still couldn't do it. You couldn't | even access your own data with the internal tools. | | I had a similar experience with AWS when I worked at Netflix. | We were trying to diagnose a really strange problem and I | asked the engineer to look at our data from their tools to | help me find it. They told me they couldn't access that data, | that the tools blocked them. Then I tried to give them an SSH | key for one of our instances and they told me they would get | fired for doing that and could not under any circumstance log | into our box. | | I assume MS has similar controls. | skohan wrote: | But what I mean is you wouldn't even need to look at | customer data. Just knowing how much traffic is going to | which services would tell you a lot about a business. I | don't know if they somehow obfuscate that as well. | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | Sure, the average employee doesn't have access to this | information. But do you seriously believe there isn't a way | for the inner circle (VPs and above) to do this kind of | data mining covertly? | | Sheryl Sandberg was using her power to silence reporting on | her partner's sexual harrasment charges. Ebay execs were | terrorizing a random couple. But no, they would never look | into customer data! Pinky promise! | | Such a naive way of thinking... | jjav wrote: | > Sure, the average employee doesn't have access to this | information. | | Exactly. There will be strict controls for nearly all | employees, but the rules don't really apply to top | executives. Anyone in IT or Infosec who has to try to | enforce policies on top execs has encountered this in | their career. | | If there is a substantial business advantage in seeing | some data the company has, you can bet the execs are | seeing that data. | [deleted] | ABeeSea wrote: | Facebook bought a VPN company specifically to monitor traffic | to competitors. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onavo | | Amazon bought Alexa (the site ranking site, not the voice | assistant) for the same reason. | rhizome wrote: | And for which FB is currently fighting a class action | lawsuit: | | https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1532210053469687808.html | [deleted] | [deleted] | stevewatson301 wrote: | https://archive.ph/nX06E | peppertree wrote: | Big tech gives employees RSUs. There's little risk for employees | and huge upside. Startups offer options, which employees have to | buy with their own cash, and deal with tax implications. Average | engineer can only get burned so many times before realizing | startups are crap deals. | mourinhoalex wrote: | Agreed, startups give you sort of a lottery rush, you imagine | how much money you can make and you can accept just out of the | thrill of you having so much money. | | More often the stock options are worthless, and that's how many | companies value them when counter offering. | pacetherace wrote: | Startups are not a crap deal. Startups that start with the | dream of raising 100s of millions are crap deals. | dilyevsky wrote: | Title should be "greedy investors and management making life | tough for themselves". Where did i put my tiniest violin in the | world... | dzink wrote: | There are several stacked catch 22s here. | | 1. Often the giants don't pursue a space until a startup proves | it's viable - in that case you have to start something to make it | happen. 2. Even internally there is a lot of competition at the | giants for prime real estate and promo space on the apps to | feature existing or new internal projects. The more types of | projects the business launches, the more it has to kill because | the mobile screen won't grow any bigger. So there is a limit on | how many acquired companies will actually keep living. If the | team is any good, they are also pulled in other directions. For | every github and instagram there are many more dead ends and even | more so acquisitions of data. | | It makes you wonder: what if in addition to privacy policy and | terms documents, each online property has an acquisition terms | statement. That would state for users and future acquirers see | what is up for grabs if the startup is ever acquired (would | product keep operating as part of the deal, would data be erased, | would software be open sourced, would users/employees get some | kind of a distribution, etc.) | Apocryphon wrote: | > All the while, Martino's ultimate warning--that they might | someday regret actually getting the money they wanted--would | still hang over these two young men, inherent to a system | designed to turn strivers into subcontractors. Instead of what | you want to build--the consumer-facing, world-remaking thing-- | almost invariably you are pushed to build a small piece of | technology that somebody with a lot of money wants built | cheaply. As the engineer and writer Alex Payne put it, these | startups represent "the field offices of a large distributed | workforce assembled by venture capitalists and their associate | institutions," doing low-overhead, low-risk R&D for five | corporate giants. In such a system, the real disillusionment | isn't the discovery that you're unlikely to become a | billionaire; it's the realization that your feeling of autonomy | is a fantasy, and that the vast majority of you have been set | up to fail by design. | | > They ran an experiment. None of their lives have been | ruined." He knew they'd get good jobs, even if it meant the | life of a project manager at Yahoo. "And none of their | investors' lives have been ruined either. When they close up | shop, their investors will say, 'That's one more off the books. | I don't need to help them anymore. I get my time back.'" | | _No Exit: Struggling to Survive a Modern Gold Rush_ by Gideon | Lewis-Kraus | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7643902 | salawat wrote: | Holy shit. | | That about crystalizes my sense of existential ennui at the | moment. | | On the one hand... It works. On the other hand, Christ, if | that's all it boils down to... Dear God, what have we built? | Apocryphon wrote: | It's funny because _No Exit_ , and that article which is | the abridged version of it, was published eight years ago. | The industry has been in this steady-state for a while | until COVID hyperinflation upended everything. | | https://slate.com/business/2014/05/no-exit-by-gideon- | lewis-k... | daniel-cussen wrote: | In terms of acquisition statements, music labels I read do 5 | year contracts, with all contracts renegotiated upon | acquisition. Says it all, that's why YC says don't do a music | startup. Just don't. | alexashka wrote: | When was it ever easy to do something new that threatens the | existing power structure? Oh right, never :) | WalterGR wrote: | If anyone is curious, the submission from 2018 got 455 points and | 164 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17221885 | systemvoltage wrote: | There is an interesting dichotomy. On one hand, you simply cannot | build advanced semiconductors without thousands of people in | scale. We wouldn't have cheap semiconductors if it wasn't for big | corporations. On the other hand, the moat that they build in the | process through various ways (market capture, lock-ins, IP | threats, etc) are real obstacles for startups. Startups are the | seeds that clear out old forests and rejuvinate the land. They're | necessary but so are the forces that are their obstacles. | Conversation here is generally sawtoothing between these two | opposing forces but may be there is a role here for some minor | form of regulation. A type of an economic free zone for startups | where they're immune from large corporate pressures. America | could benefit from a Shenzhen/Goungzhou type of a economic free | zone. | Apocryphon wrote: | Startups, once sufficiently successful, also simply | metamorphose into the the big corporations they displaced, | witness FANG. (And even Apple itself, once built to challenge | IBM's dominance.) Seems like this is all something inherent to | the nature of power, regardless of the domain. | systemvoltage wrote: | Yeah, although inherent to nature would necessitate some kind | of a proper death. Without it, these ancient goliaths linger | around with no sense and no purpose (HP, IBM, etc). | TameAntelope wrote: | Not for nothing, but these "American tech giants" offer _huge_ | credit programs for startups to use their platforms for free to | launch. | | AWS offers $100k for a year if you've raised some funds, and I | saw that Azure is offering $150k pre-funding (I don't know if or | what the time limit is on the Azure credits). I'm sure GCP offers | something similar, though I don't know the details. | | These are _huge_ , and a smart startup could quite easily | leverage these to skip an entire funding round (with some amount | of luck). I'm not sure if you can daisy-chain these offers, but | if you can, a quarter of a million dollars saved on engineering | infrastructure cost is pretty much the polar opposite of "making | life tough for startups". | | You might note use the full amount of credits, but if you've | found a product/market fit (and if you haven't after the first | year, that may be it's own sign), and you've not been | particularly cautious about your code's efficiency, $100k is a | godsend, at least insofar as you not having to actually fork over | cash for your missteps in the first year. | | I don't know if those programs were offered when this article is | written, but they're offered now so the title is no longer true. | degrews wrote: | I'm skeptical. I feel like any startup for whom 100k is "huge" | is not at a stage where they'd be spending anywhere near that | amount on cloud infrastructure. | systemvoltage wrote: | Voluntary actions from big corporations don't cut the mustard. | They can cancel it any time, for any reason and without | warning. It's nice of them but that's not why they're in the | business of giving away credits. | tpmx wrote: | These offers only seem to be there for VC-funded companies, as | you say. | | Recent experience with GCP: Self-funded, organically grown | company. Europe. AWS spend and revenue growing with like 25% | per year for 8+ years. GCP only offers 30% off the first year | as a migration bonus. That's it. Meh. | ssalazar wrote: | This can cut both ways. Even after the recent massive dip, Snap's | valuation is an order of magnitude greater than Facebook's | notorious buyout offer. Twitter's Fleets feature lasted less than | a year, and Im not sure that their Clubhouse-"inspired" feature | has gained much traction. Its not clear that even Facebook will | be able to disrupt Tiktok's momentum. Slack exists and is | successful despite consolidated offerings from the tech giants | (Google famously has a double-digit number of chat apps). | | Generally, startups have drastically less internal momentum, | bureaucracy, tech debt, or politics to contend with and are much | better positioned to push fresh ideas, and be responsive to | customer needs rather than fitting a larger corporate narrative. | But its fair to say that if a startup idea is really just a | feature idea (even a really good, well-executed feature idea, | like Calendly) and doesn't scale its ambition beyond that, the | best outcome to hope for is a buyout, and at worst being built | internally by a giant. | | On the other hand, its never been easier to start a software | business thanks to incentives from the tech giants. Google Cloud | is basically free to start up and gain traction with. Granted, | there may be downsides to this, but not having to think too hard | about infra opens up a lot of opportunities at the same time. | Apocryphon wrote: | This is one of the reasons why I'm skeptical that Apple opening | up iOS to sideloading will lead to Meta, Google, or Amazon | rival third party iOS app stores hosting apps with more | invasive tracking and lack of privacy protections. | | These tech giants are great at xeroxing products and features, | not so good at selling them in such a way that users can be | convinced to switch. The existence of so many cookie-cutter | clones that never get anywhere, from entire cloud gaming | platforms, to mobile payment methods, to slapping Snapchat- | style stories into an app for no reason, shows that it's easy | to envision and build, hard to get actual users. | rootsudo wrote: | Slack was bought out by Salesforce. | brightball wrote: | I'm currently using Google's chat and spaces at work. It's | passable. They have a "threaded" view that I was really excited | about at first but you can't collapse the threads so people | just reply to whatever the first thread is that they see. | | If they could get the UI right on the threaded bits and add a | standalone desktop app, they'd be very close to "good enough" | for most places that need some central chat option. | | I haven't tried out their web hooks yet, but it's on my | experiment list. The rest of the Google Workspace offering just | makes life so much easier though. | __derek__ wrote: | > Im not sure that their Clubhouse-"inspired" feature has | gained much traction | | I have no idea what the numbers look like, but I'm aware of | people using Twitter Spaces (even though I no longer use | Twitter!), while I'm not aware of _anyone_ using Clubhouse. | mulligan wrote: | > Even after the recent massive dip, Snap's valuation is an | order of magnitude greater than Facebook's notorious buyout | offer | | you need to do the math for both companies. If Snap took the | offer and held the FB stock, it would be at the exact same | valuation that SNAP is currently at | Ferrotin wrote: | But that's not what you do with the stock. | mulligan wrote: | hmm, please explain. is the ceo of snap still holding SNAP | shares? it is liquid and the ability to sell off or keep is | true whether he had FB shares or SNAP shares | ssalazar wrote: | Fair point. Even with the valuations exactly the same, Snap's | case demonstrates resilience to "American tech giants making | life tough for statups." | [deleted] | aylmao wrote: | To be fair, calling Snap, TikTok or Slack a startup is pushing | the definition of a "start-up" a bit. This article _was_ | written in 2018 when these were all smaller, but even back then | these weren't too small. | | Snapchat has been around since 2011, Slack has been around | since 2013, and Musical.ly has been around since 2014. By 2018 | they all had significant user bases; Musical.ly had been in | acquisition talks with Facebook in 2016 [1], and was acquired | for $1 billion by ByteDance in 2017 [5]. Snapchat had famously | been offered $3 billion in 2013 by Facebook [2]. Slack was big | enough to buy HipChat and Stride from Atlassian [3][4]. | | By 2018, I'd say these companies were already in a good | position to compete with tech giants; but I wonder about the | smaller startups. Say companies that have been founded in the | past 5 years; have they had an unfairly hard time? Do they see | any future where they can actually compete with a tech giant, | and not just shoot for a buy-out? I don't have data on this, | but I'd be curious to know how the trends have been shifting | here. | | [1]: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/11/13/facebook- | musical... | | [2]: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/12/how-mark-zuckerberg-has- | used... | | [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HipChat | | [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stride_(software) | | [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical.ly | systemvoltage wrote: | Stripe's session had something unsettling in their | presentation. They boasted about how well they're good at | dealing with bureaucracy and byzantine laws in fintech so we, | as their customers, don't need to worry about them. In a way, | they're admitting that the moat is built by the bureaucrat | class and they're the beneficiaries of being inside the | perimeter. They deserve it but we should sometimes take two | steps back and confer to ourselves - "Wait...why have we built | a giant moat in the first place?". Large corporations have | perverse incentives to increase the moat by working with the | only coercive entity we have - the Government. | | Future has in for us more state corporatism than I'd like. It | is sort of dystopian, but that word has been diluted these | days. | Apocryphon wrote: | In the absence of government, those same large private | entities would simply build similar bureaucracies in their | stead, and we would have even less recourse against them. | Vote with your dollar or vote with your vote, the dilemma | exists in both real and imagined societies. | systemvoltage wrote: | Moats should be built through technological advancement, | not appeasing regulations. I think you misread, I am not | advocating absence of the government. But we should | question decades of regulation that has piled up in a way | that provides giant moats that do not do anything to build | a better product (no strike for Stripe, speaking generally) | but to satiate those regulations and prevent others from | building anything. | ssalazar wrote: | In the specific case of Stripe, Ill gladly take a larger | bureaucratic moat in exchange for PCI compliance. The | cryptocurrency world is rediscovering this tradeoff all over | again. | dev_daftly wrote: | Slack was acquired by Salesforce | curuinor wrote: | Slack's gotten bought. It's bought. SFDC bought it. come on... | ssalazar wrote: | That doesnt materially change anything I said. They made it | to IPO without getting swallowed or beat by a tech giant, | they won. | dasil003 wrote: | Yeah, honestly I think the bigger negative impact on startups | is the incredible profitability of these targeted advertising | monopolies that has pushed market salaries so high that upper | quartile programmers with 3-10 years experience inherently see | their value as being $500k-$1M in total comp without any real | notion of what kind of business structures can generate the | kind of cash flow to justify those salaries beyond just burning | VC capital in an oversaturated bull market. | | Even though I personally have benefitted from the upward | pressure to software engineering comp, as consumers I believe | we would have a way better ecosystem of tech products if | engineers salaries weren't tied to VC economics. | ditonal wrote: | But engineer compensation has been larger pushed up by the | FAANG companies which are highly profitable. There's some VC | fueled companies competing with them like Uber but on the | whole engineer compensation went up not due to VC money but | because big tech was able to generate millions in profits | from engineers. Every FAANG company has a P/E ratio under 30 | so these big engineer packages are from strong business | fundamentals and profits, not VC economics. | | Startups have the ability to compete in ways like better | equity deals but by and large they still highly prioritize | their investor concerns over hiring concerns as reflected in | things like liquidation preferences in ISO and stingy equity | grants. Most of the founders would rather ride their startup | to the grave then re-evaluate the "standard" terms of their | equity compensation approaches which each year have become | more favorable for VCs and less favorable for employees. | | Even though big tech has many problems and things I disagree | with, at the end of the day they respect engineers by paying | them their value while startup founders prefer to make | engineers second class citizens then bemoan their hiring | difficulties. | dasil003 wrote: | > _But engineer compensation has been larger pushed up by | the FAANG companies which are highly profitable._ | | If you go back and re-read this is exactly my point. | Google, Facebook, Amazon have structural advantages that | make them more profitable than the majority of useful | services ever could be, much of which is based on the | unregulated and morally questionable use of massive amounts | of user behavior data. This sucks the oxygen out of the | room for startups who could provide an honest product for | an honest price, but might not be able to get the economies | of scale to pay $500k per senior engineer. In other skilled | labor professions $100k-$200k is considered well | compensated, and that creates a larger sweet spot which | enabled more diversity of services. With software + | internet the potential for near-zero-marginal-cost global | scaling push everything towards a winner-take all | mentality, and so small shops providing diverse and higher | quality niche products get squeezed for talent. | | Again, I have benefitted personally from this dynamic, but | I'm also old enough to be saddened at the unfulfilled | promise of lower software build and distribution costs that | we envisioned at the blossoming of the web and the release | of Microsoft's iron grip on software profitability in the | late 90s. | azemetre wrote: | I feel like you've neglected that there was a massive | lawsuit against big tech where Google, Adobe, Apple, | Paypal, and others actively colluded with each other to | suppress wages: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High- | Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... | | It really wasn't until after this lawsuit, along with | Facebook actively making better offers, that tech salaries | started to skyrocket. I'm the sure the bull market for 8 | years didn't hurt either. | formerkrogemp wrote: | Management and executives are DEFINITELY underpaying us | relative to what we bring to the table for them. This is | true of every industry going on decades of increasing | productivity and stagnating pay. What's new here besides | greater awareness and labor churn? Will there be an | actual change going forward? Of course the demographics | favor workers now, but the laws and politics often don't. | Immigration and outsourcing and automation can change | that power dynamic very quickly. What're you going to do? | Form a union? Start a company? Vote? Quit and work | elsewhere? Interesting times we live in. | | Maybe that is one of the reason headcounts have ballooned | and complexity has increased so much -- an attempt to | minimize individual impact. VCs and MBAs famously refer | to this as the bus principle: what would happen if the | key employee or executive got hit by a bus today? How | would the company fare? The metaphor is quite telling in | its priors, assumptions, and priorities. | | All of my friends and aquaintinces in nursing, tax, | retail, and trucking have a few people who are trying to | break into programming because of the benefits and pay. | Outsourcing, scope creep, and automation exist and are | expanding in my industry as well. How long until this | drags down programmers as well? With the potential end of | this bull marker will programming compensation stop being | the highest paid field? I do wonder and doubt. | barry-cotter wrote: | > It really wasn't until after this lawsuit, along with | Facebook actively making better offers, that tech | salaries started to skyrocket. | | No, the lawsuit had nothing to do with it. The market | exploded because Facebook refused to join the cartel. The | lawsuit fined the companies involved risible amounts and | no one involved got fired or jail. Irrelevant. | puranjay wrote: | While I don't disagree with you at all, the current startup | scene doesn't feel organic. So many of these "startups" are | severely bloated and should have gone public ages ago. | | A simple look at the employee headcount at most unicorns is | startling. A startup that's years away from IPO shouldn't have | 5,000+ employees. At that point, you lose much of the agility | startups are supposed to have in the first place. | | The constant inflow of private funding have allowed startups to | acquire way too many bad habits and bureaucratic layers. | hellomyguys wrote: | TikTok required billions of dollars on ad spend to be able to | compete. Definitely shows you can break into being a top-tier | social product, but it maybe requires a lot of money to do in a | short amount of time. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-02 23:00 UTC)