<i>In short, the bliss of selling and giving up your business is overrated. It’s a long life and it’s often best spent enduring the ups and downs of pursuing something of significance. Don’t be so eager to give it up.</i><p>Hmm. Recent posts seem to be 37Signals attempting to rationalize their business model vs. recent sell outs for large amounts of money.<p>I'll stand up and say I'd happily take a $40m pay out so that I could be completely financially secure and get to do what I want. I have a short list of things that I would be very happy doing other than working for money.<p>To quote Einstein: "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about."<p>But I'll take the comfort of knowing that I don't have to work, and get on with the cool stuff.
In this thread<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=829583" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=829583</a><p>Jason from 37signals said they'd have a post that FU money is a myth. I hope this isn't it.<p>The point of FU money isn't that you'd actually quit everything and walk away. Its about the ABILITY to do so. Once you reach this point everything else is about being able to make your own choices, not being backed into a corner because you have bills to pay.
This makes no sense. I don't understand why the 37signals folks seem to willfully ignore that the amount of money that a successful acquisition gives a founder means you can do whatever you want for the rest of your life, <i>including solving interesting problems</i>. You can even solve interesting problems that aren't profitable to solve. Unless the company is almost guaranteed to be valuable enough for the foreseeable future that a sale (or other exit) will make you financially independent (e.g. Facebook), there comes a point where it is clearly better to sell the company.<p>Since the Mint acquisition seems to have inspired this series of posts, let's take a look at it. Mint is successful because banks have crappy online products. Banks are perfectly positioned to end Mint's customer growth, and there are several other competitors in the industry as well. There is not a particularly high chance that Mint will still be successful in 5-10 years. If it is successful, the marginal utility of the increased worth for the founders declines pretty rapidly. Selling now seems like it was clearly the best idea, and disproving that is going to take more than the false dichotomy this post presents.
This post seems to make two separate arguments:<p>1) A driven individual won't be content to idle if they get a big exit, they will likely jump right back in. If you think what you want is an eternal vacation, you're probably wrong.<p>2) Therefore, a driven individual shouldn't pursue a big exit, if they already enjoy what they're doing, because they'll just jump back in.<p>I agree with 1), but not with 2). I enjoy what I'm doing, but the list of things I want to do is growing at a faster pace than my ability to work on them. I'm just not built for the "one true lifelong obsession" model.<p>Edit: the more I think about it, the more I realize why this post bothers me.<p>I'm really starting to think that 37s and HN are preaching to completely different choirs - which is strange, given how well 37s posts do here.<p>Some people thrive on routine and order. They love to get up in the morning and know what they'll do that day. To have a successful system figured out, and to follow it. And yes, there are always new challenges, and yes, the system is continuously improved - but to some extent, it's routine.<p>Others thrive on tackling the unknown. That initial rush of carving out an answer, starting with a blank slate. The uncertainty of not knowing what you're doing, the high chance of failure, but also the joy of not being constrained by what came before you.<p>In programming terms, it's the difference between maintaining code and starting a new project. Some people obviously enjoy one more than the other.<p>Seems to me like 37signals is preaching code maintenance over starting new projects. Sure, in many cases that makes a lot of sense, but which one's more FUN?
The bliss of knowing that your kids college tuition is fully paid for, no matter where they get accepted, is <i>not</i> overrated. Thinking like DHH indulges in this post is a luxury.
<i>I don’t think that person exists as often as the idea of the artist-beneath-the-suit would romance us to believe.</i><p>That's a huge assumption to write off the entire reason people would want to sell their company–to pursue things other than money.
My desire to grow a successful company and cash out is not because I want to sit on some island - it's so I have more freedom and can get back in the game again, the next time around with more experience.<p>I love my current company, I'm extremely passionate about it and what I do, but I also know that it's not the last thing I'm going to do.<p>And I seriously doubt that I'm alone in this.<p>Whatever community they're trying to appeal to with this post, I don't think it's this one.
I want to work on interesting stuff. But...<p>Here's the fallacy. I don't believe that what our startup is doing is the only interesting stuff I could be working on. Some of the interesting things I'd like to do have no obvious, direct economic benefit. For example, there's a bunch of important work which needs doing in emergency technologies which isn't the kind of thing you can build into a scalable, VC-type business.<p>If I had the freedom from economic uncertainty to work on those problems, you bet I'd consider it.
“So after a much-needed vacation, the retirement is canceled and they’re back to start a new company. (Not always with as much passion as the first time around, but that’s another story).”<p>But sometimes with twice the passion as the first time around. You should only "rush to get out" if you've got something that you're really passionate about to look forward to. I don't know virtually ANY entrepreneurs who envision a life of pure leisure if/when they cash out. I personally have 2 or 3 companies/non-profits I'd LOVE to start and there are probably a few (generally young) that I'd even take a job at, assuming that I'd have enough autonomy to do cool stuff.
Citing sports stars who came back from retirement in the context of this argument is idiotic. In most professional sports, there is a point at which your abilities start to decline due to age. The tension is between going out at the absolute top of your game, vs. enjoying a few more years of something you are supremely good at, and will never get to do again.<p>This whole premise for an essay is silly - if you are one of the tiny number of people in a position to make this kind of choice, are you really going to turn to some dude's blog post to make up your mind? But the sports comparison puts it over the top.
Erm, this certainly isn't one of my favourite 37S posts.<p>I actually agree with them. I think building a "company" whose sole purpose is to be sold, profitable or not is not as fulfilling as building a company that is a company. I think most of us should be striving to build for long term success.<p>That being said, even 37S needs to realize that building a company is a lot more fun with $XX million in the bank than it is with $XX thousand. It's certainly a lot more fun to do everything else in your life that way, like raising a family, exploring the world doing whatever else it is that your heart desires.<p>This is a rather weak post with a weak argument.
Contrary to some people here, I don't think DHH is arguing that taking a 40m pay ouy is a bad thing by itself. He argues that it shouldn't be your primary goal.
A big exit gives you freedom from everything. Want to start a new venture? Do it. Want to sail around the world? Go to town. Having to work every year, albeit for 2 million a year, still means having to work.
I think this is a good post. I also think the dialog is good for the community.<p>With this and the related posts here, there seems to be a preoccupation with <i>not working for the man</i> (whoever that is) and not <i>having</i> to work for money. I think it's baloney and I've yet to hear a reasonable argument for this stance.<p>If you have a startup, you're already not working for the man. If you took VC and you feel they are <i>the man</i>, well ... sorry, no one forced you to do it.<p>I wonder how many of the critics of this POV have had a growing, profitable startup for more than a year.
I think the title is more clever than the article. Traditionally, a mirage is a false vision of safety in a dangerous place. If the idea of Mojito Island drives you to keep going in a hostile environment: great. I don't see the suggestion that taking the payoff was the wrong thing, just that reality on the other side did not meet expectations. Sure, it may not be what you wanted, but if you walked that extra distance to get there, rather than giving up and dying, where's the trouble?
I always thought "mojito island" was a metaphor. It represents the freedom to do what you want, where you want, and when you want.<p>That freedom often times is the same place you just came from, which shouldn't be that surprising. The term "serial entrepreneur" exists because there are enough of them. The thing that drove them the first time isn't likely to go away. Although I'd imagine most of the end up with a better work/life balance than they did during their first successful endeavor.
Couldnt agree more.<p>We all find meaning in our work - entrepreneurs almost doubly so - and that 'meaning' is one of the biggest components of our individual happiness. When you 'exit' your startup you also exit that 'meaning' - and then there is no choice rather than to go back find it all over again.
* It’s a long life and it’s often best spent enduring the ups and downs of pursuing something of significance. Don’t be so eager to give it up.*<p>I don't want to give it up, I want to give up <i>having to do it</i>.
Look: if you love what you do (they seem to), and you make enough money at it to be secure (they seem to), why would you "sell out"? Yeah, you could sell out--but why?