TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Entrepreneurship is not about changing the world

47 点作者 urlwolf超过 16 年前

15 条评论

daleharvey超过 16 年前
Passion isnt part of the definition of entrepreneur, but I do think its a facet that precedes it.<p>just like becoming a professional swimmer, being the best (swimmer) and not failing (starting a company) both require extremely hard work, and its hard to sustain that level of work required without some(a lot of) passion
评论 #481643 未加载
dtap超过 16 年前
This strikes me as very close minded. The measure of success depends on the metric. How innovative I am does not always manifest itself in money. Does that make my endeavor any less entrepreneurial? I think not.<p>If all you care about it money, than obviously not having it will mean you have failed. If you define your entrepreneurial spirit as something more, you are successful when you achieve that something, whatever it may be.
评论 #481510 未加载
评论 #481523 未加载
tigerthink超过 16 年前
<i>Cross-posted from the blog's comments...</i><p>OK, let's say I want to change the world and I decide starting a company is the best way to do that. I guess that means I'm not an entrepreneur, huh?<p>"But the sooner an entrepreneur and young budding CEOs realise that there really is only one metric that counts in this game, the sooner we will get beyond the recent Web 2.0 silliness and thereby give birth to a revitalised start up environment where some truly amazing, long lasting companies will be created."<p>To the contrary, the Web 2.0 silliness is a result of people thinking like you. Most Web 2.0 companies (reddit, twitter, youtube) are time-wasters. If entrepreneurs were looking to change the world, they'd be working on something real like online education.
评论 #481893 未加载
评论 #481679 未加载
评论 #482442 未加载
评论 #481598 未加载
10ren超过 16 年前
entrepreneur: <i>n</i> one who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise. <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entrepreneur" rel="nofollow">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entrepreneur</a><p>"Enterprise" makes it pretty broad, from Broadway musicals to journeys of discovery. There's nothing about "lasting companies" that make "lots" of money.<p>The article is really suggesting that <i>entrepreneur</i> should be defined as it has defined it. Unfortunately, it presents no arguments for this, but merely proclaims an opinion.
评论 #481883 未加载
nostrademons超过 16 年前
I think it's better to phrase this in terms of instrumental vs. inherent goals. The <i>inherent</i> goal of an entrepreneur is to build lasting companies that generate large profits. That's what they're there for, and that's the yardstick for success.<p>Some <i>instrumental</i> goals of this are being passionate about the product, changing the world, doing what you love, etc. Because if you do what you love, you're likely passionate about the product. If you're passionate about the product, you'll likely change the world. If you change the world, you'll likely (though not always) have a built a lasting company that generates large profits.<p>Similarly, for most people, generating large profits is an instrumental goal to being happy, and then being happy is the inherent goal. Some people find they can be happy by doing a not-so-profitable small business that happens to let them do what they want, skipping the make-lots-of-profits step. These people fail at entrepreneurship but win at life.
msie超过 16 年前
Some examples of entrepreneurs who are truly amazing and long-lasting:<p>- patent trolls<p>- domain squatters<p>- spammers
评论 #481943 未加载
ph0rque超过 16 年前
&#62; An entrepreneur's job is to build lasting companies that make lots of money. Period.<p>This is one of those arguments that starts falling apart as soon as you start looking at it closely. What if I build a company that makes lots of money for a short period of time? Am I not an entrepreneur? Or what if I don't respect laws and ethics while making said money, and I'm smart enough to not get caught, or smart enough to quit when I have a reasonable value of "lots of money"?
ctingom超过 16 年前
Entrepreneurship is about changing one little small part of my world.
msie超过 16 年前
"But the sooner an entrepreneur and young budding CEOs realise that there really is only one metric that counts in this game, the sooner we will get beyond the recent Web 2.0 silliness and thereby give birth to a revitalised start up environment where some truly amazing, long lasting companies will be created."<p>"truly amazing" - a little bit of hyperbole perhaps? Oh boy, I can't wait for the Golden Era of Entrepreneurship to arrive!!!
bjelkeman-again超过 16 年前
Old fashioned thinking. Only money counts. I disagree.
评论 #481719 未加载
theBobMcCormick超过 16 年前
What a stupid and pointless blog post. His argument is completely unfounded. For example; in the comments, someone asks where Jimbo Wales would be considered an entrepreneur and the author of the blog says that Jimbo Wales is <i>not</i> an entrepreneur, because WikiPedia is not a for profit business.<p>This a rather arbitrary definition of an entrepreneur. I checked both Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster.com, and both of their definitions for entrepreneur <i>do</i> include room for entrepreneur who found non-profits. See for yourself: <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entrepreneur" rel="nofollow">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entrepreneur</a> <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entrepreneur" rel="nofollow">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entrepreneur</a><p>Clearly the authors argument and conclusion is unfounded crap. Creating a long lasting and profitable commercial business is certainly a valid motivation for entrepreneurship, but so is changing the world, or even something as modest as looking to establish a second income stream, or looking for a different time/income tradeoff (4HWW, etc).
评论 #481948 未加载
Smartbabes超过 16 年前
Hello everyone!<p>Thanks so much for your comments both here and on the original blog. I will try to reply to a few points raised here which I think misunderstand my argument.<p>1. "This thinking caused the economic crisis" ... I am having a hard time following the logic here. Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Steve Jobs ... how did they cause this economic crisis again? I believe the poster is conflating my argument with a view I never made, which is that people should focus on short term versus long term. I never stated this, and no one would claim that a person who only tries to maximize the profits for one day to the detriment of the company for ever would be a successful entrepreneur.<p>2. As for the bankers in this world, according to my view, they would be complete failures ... as they LOST money by the bucket loads.<p>3. As for the question of starting a company to change the world, I applaud you. You may be very successful in helping many people. But this would not put you in the same league as Bill Gates, Sergey Brin or Steve Jobs UNLESS your company can consistently make money.<p>To make my point perhaps a bit clearer, take for example another profession ... brain surgeon. You can be the nicest brain surgeon in the world. You can set up a company that offers free books to children. But if my father needs brain surgery, all of these are side considerations. What matters is whether you can perform the brain surgery successfully or not. That is it.<p>The same point applies to competitive athletes. They can be fine people, but if they come in 8th in a footrace, they have not succeeded in their job, which is to run faster than their competitors.<p>4. As for the point about twitter and other non-moneymaking companies, that is exactly my point ... they need to find viable business models. Linkedin is a company that makes money and one I consider to be an entrepreneurial success ... twitter, no (at least not yet).<p>5. As for Vincent Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee, they are all successful scientists. They are NOT successful entrepreneurs, unless you stretch the definition of entrepreneur to a point where the term becomes meaningless. (e.g. "My mom is an entrepreneur because she gave me the wonderful gift of life," etc.)<p>If you change the definition of a word, you can prove any nonsense. For example I can prove that camels have wings and can fly ... just by stretching the definition of camel to also include all animals with two eyes. This is a logical fallacy.<p>So in sum, you can respect people like Jimmy Wales or Tim Berners Lee or Linus Torvalds or my mother. I certainly do. But they have not won the entrepreneur game. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin ... Yes. My mom ... no.<p>Love,<p>Anjali Sen <a href="http://smartbabesaresexy.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://smartbabesaresexy.blogspot.com</a>
评论 #481865 未加载
iamelgringo超过 16 年前
It's a lot easier to hire passionate engineers as employees if you're trying to change the world, however.
sarvesh超过 16 年前
How can one create a long lasting company if that person isn't passionate about what he is creating? How long one work on something he doesn't love? I think his statements are contradicting or at least nearly impossible to achieve.
c00p3r超过 16 年前
this sporty hot-shot, who jumps on the roof every day / he knows how it works / but entirely missed the point. =)