
Not for sale - johns
http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2233-not-for-sale
======
tkiley
I like 37 Signals. I like Joel Spolsky. I like Paul Graham. I occasionally
even read Techcrunch. However, I believe all of these people (and many others)
tend to occasionally overstate and undersupport their positions. I can’t blame
them for it. After all, shoddy generalization provokes snarky rebuttal, which
leads to counter-rebuttal, which leads to increased exposure. It’s a great
play for the writers; unfortunately, while the writers are busy racking up
traffic, readers are unwittingly pissing away the hours spectating a geekier
version of Jerry Springer.

I would pay good money to obtain access to a stream of intrinsically
interesting content without any of this overstated, undersupported crap.

Edit: My (overstated? undersupported?) assertion that this article is
overstated, undersupported crap is now the top comment. The irony is
disturbing. I hope someone builds a product that eliminates these frustrations
for me (and others) in the future.

~~~
spolsky
I agree. If you're getting sick of reading our overstated and undersupported
crap, I suggest getting a puppy. During the first few months of his life
you'll be too busy to surf the internet.

I barely have time for one or two HN stories a day, now, and I haven't been to
Reddit since picking Taco up at the airport.

~~~
tkiley
Hi, Joel. I've learned a lot from your stuff.

I guess I'm just frustrated that the current structure of web has created all
sorts of malincentives around the exchange of knowledge. Trollish content
attracts more attention, so well-meaning creators of worthwhile content are
incentivized to wrap legitimate ideas in trollish presentation in order to
reach a larger audience.

I wish this weren't the case. I hope it changes in the future.

~~~
stanleydrew
That's the same problem that TV and radio "news" has had for a long time. I
don't think the problem has to do with the structure of the web. I think the
problem has to do with human beings. And given that this keeps repeating
itself, I wouldn't call it a "problem," more just "reality." I agree it sucks
though, but presumably the low cost of spreading information on the web will
allow niche information sources to flourish. HN itself is an example of
getting closer to that.

------
Perceval
Steve Jobs _was_ a serial entrepreneur—starting Apple, then Pixar, then NeXT,
then returning to transform Apple. Maybe he didn't want to be at the time, but
in his Stanford commencement speech he said (with the benefit of retrospect)
that getting fired from Apple was one of the most important events in his
life. Here's what he said:

"I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the
best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being
successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure
about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my
life."

Now, Steve didn't flip Apple, he didn't sell out. But the point is that he did
start over from scratch. 37signals are right that building a business for the
principal purpose of flipping it is probably a perverse goal. But being a
serial entrepreneur is not a bad thing, and Jobs is precisely an example of
why it's not a bad thing.

~~~
astine
I was going to say the same thing but you beet me to it.

I'd also add that Warren Buffett isn't an entrepruer in the same sense that
someone running a tech startup is.

~~~
bdotdub
I'm curious what you mean with the Warren Buffet comment. Running a tech
startup and running Berkshire are completely different, so I'm not sure what
sort of comparison you are making.

~~~
astine
"Running a tech startup and running Berkshire are completely different,"

Exactly, it's rather silly to expect a tech entrepreneur to follow the same
career path as Warren Buffett.

------
kolosy
success is a great thing, but this constant "we're the only ones that are
doing it right" attitude is getting old.

~~~
SeamusBrady
Yes, I agree. 37s have become a slight parody of themselves. They used to
point and laugh about how web business was done in an 'enterprisey' way by
their example company Enormicon (I think it was called).

Now we have a set of cliches for a small funky online company should act.

It is all about subverting the dominant X paradigm where X is anything that
you don't like or don't use or don't understand.

\- Only use Apple computers to subvert the dominant Windows OS paradigm

\- Only use Rails to subvert the dominant PHP/Java paradigm

\- Only use Textmate for editing to subvert the dominant
Vim/Emacs/Notepad/Eclipse paradigm

\- Use swear words in your presentations to subvert the dominant politeness-
to-people-who-pay-into-conferences paradigm

I could go on. I am generalising here too! But sooner or later 37s may wake up
and realise that they are the new mainstream amongst the web dev crowd.

They have slayed the monster of PHP/Java.

Perhaps its is time to stop playing the hip outsider?

~~~
dhh
What's wrong with that paradigm? If you believe that your technology or
philosophy is better than the status quo, why wouldn't you argue for that? Why
wouldn't you want to convince others to do the same? The progress of the world
demands on the spreading of good ideas.

Also, there are still many, many, many more PHP and Java developers and shops
out there than there are Rails. That shift is far from done.

Once the good ideas have become mainstream, the work on those are done, but by
then I'm sure even better ideas are available and the process starts anew.

This is not bad, this is healthy.

~~~
SeamusBrady
The contradictions of success!

Don't get me wrong, I have worked with Rails - I admire what 37s have done and
a good rate of churn in new ideas in any profession can be healthy and welcome
thing.

I just wonder if 37s have gone from being the underdogs? What do you rebel
against when you are the status quo - at least among the opinion formers and
alpha geeks?

It is like when a renegade leftfield music act become mainstream. Look at Rage
Against the Machine (with their leftist anti-capitalist music) becoming
millionaires after signing up to one of the biggest capitalist music
corporations on the planet.

------
smoody
Egads. There is nothing wrong with selling. Imagine this scenario: You sell
your _first_ company, perhaps you've bootstrapped it and perhaps you sell it
for 8 digits. Then you can create a _second_ company (yes, people, it IS
possible to create TWO companies unless your fist company was a fluke and
you're unable to come up with a second company idea). Starting a second
company with serious money in the bank gives one a level of freedom you cannot
possibly imagine today. The 37Signals gurus always express their ideas
relative to having only a single company in one's lifetime (because that's
what they know). I've started and sold two companies to date and I couldn't be
happier with the outcome (that's an understatement). I am having more fun than
I ever had in my life and had I not sold, I would have never met my fiance --
she's the true passion in my life and startups don't hold a candle to her!

And my next company will be something wayyy out there -- probably so far out
that I can't get funding because it's too risky. The only reason I can do that
is because I sold my first two companies very early on and I have just enough
financial wiggle room to where I can, for now, take some risks. I see
companies like 37Signals making safe, predictable product bets and leaning on
their brand and existing customer base for income, and that's fine. But the
world needs risk takers, too. And taking risk requires capital and if that
means selling a couple of companies before they turn into empires, then count
me in! If I were to do it all over, I wouldn't change a thing.

------
dhyasama
First off, almost everything is for sale at the right price. If someone
offered 37signals one trillion dollars would the sell? Of course.

Also, there are other reasons to sell than "some sucker is willing to pay x".
Maybe you are burnt out, want to spend more time with your family, try
something new, take some risk off the table.

There is a nugget of truth in much of what 37signals says, but it is always
stated in such absolute terms that it becomes off-putting.

~~~
raganwald
> Almost everything is for sale at the right price. If someone offered
> 37signals one trillion dollars would the sell? Of course.

The fact is, nobody is offering 37Signals a trillion dollars with no strings
attached. Actual offers would involve non-competes, possibly demands the
founders stay on for a year or more, the right to fire employees, the right to
raise prices or otherwise make things unpleasant for customers the founders
like, and so on.

We can't say "Everyone's soul is for sale at the right price," get a yes, and
then come back to reality and pull out a two hundred page term sheet and
demand that they consider it since "We've established that they're for sale."

This is roughly akin to asking me if I would work for Microsoft if given a
million dollar signing bonus. Does that mean I'm open to working for Micosoft?
Or can I stick to my assertion that I'm not interested in working for Micosoft
now or in the foreseeable future?

~~~
vl
Out of curiosity, why not Microsoft specifically?

~~~
raganwald
Here's a question: _Why_ work for Microsoft? A friend went to work there
recently, and he made a very good point: In Micosoft's "First Great Age," they
had a mission everyone could understand: A computer on every desktop and in
every household. This is not one of those craptastic missions CEO's write on
their corporate retreats full off synergies and leverages, it's clear, direct,
and best of all it's objective, it's measurable.

What's the mission now that there is a computer on every desktop and in every
household? Is it as clear? Is it as direct? Will it last for a decade or more?
Is it meaningful to every employee?

All I need is someone to answer that question for me and I'll be ready to
change my mind.

------
brandon272
I've never seen a company announce so incessantly that they are not for sale.

~~~
pchristensen
Calacanis hammered dhh pretty hard about it when he was on TWIST last Friday
[http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2219-jason-calacanis-vs-
david...](http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2219-jason-calacanis-vs-david-
heinemeier-hansson-on-this-week-in-startups)

~~~
borism
hammered? really?

~~~
pchristensen
Well, "hammered" meaning he asked probably 5 or 6 variations of "Would you
ever sell?", "What if someone offered you 10x revenue, would you sell?", "What
would it take to get you to sell?", etc, even after dhh gave the same answer
every time.

~~~
gcheong
<cheney>I bet if we injected him with sodium pentathol and water-boarded that
boy we'd get the truth out of him</cheney>

------
oldgregg
37Signals pushes people to ask _WHY_. A lot of entrepreneurs are only in it
for the end game -- money, fame, et al -- they demand that you do something
you care about. Too many people view startups as a means to an end so it's a
welcome message.

It just so happens these same people ultimately have the most success because
it gives them the endurance to stick with it.

~~~
tptacek
To be fair: they also got really lucky. There are 37signals outcomes wherein
they would not be writing cocky posts about never wanting to sell.

~~~
spking
Lucky in what way? These guys executed their tails off for a decade to get to
this point.

------
patio11
I personally always liked that Chris Rock monologue for the exhortation to
build capital rather than frivolously consuming status symbols. Probably true
in tech, too. (I don't know what our rims are, exactly, but I'm sure we've got
a couple options...)

~~~
tptacek
Can we work something about jquery-ui and "clear heels" into this bit, too?

------
kgrin
Not to nitpick, but the other reason acquisitions sometimes make sense is that
a bigger "parent" might open doors that it would take a smaller company a long
time to get to, particularly in terms of scaling. In a sense, getting bought
by a big parent can (in some cases!) be equivalent to taking VC - funding,
yes, but also advice and connections (traded for a measure of control!)

Now, the benefits are often illusory (see: pretty much anything Conde Nast has
acquired). But sometimes it's actually true - particularly when there are
economies of scale or actual (I hate this word) synergies.

This is pretty much the Google promise, isn't it? "Get bought by Google, get
access to infrastructure you could never afford on your own!" This makes sense
for some businesses, not so much for others (FWIW, 37s is probably in the
latter category).

~~~
bad_user
Facebook was the former (they could've benefited a lot from Google's
infrastructure and knowledge). Google could've also benefited from Microsoft's
experience and infrastructure.

Who's the sucker now?

The biggest disadvantage is that big companies that are willing to buy aren't
risk takers ... they'll either dilute your idea, or kill your project. Google
is my kind of company, but they've killed at least a couple of startups
they've bought already.

Of course, I wouldn't place 37signals in the same league. But he does have a
point ... if your company can handle the growth without external resources,
than why sell?

~~~
borism
if your business can't grow without a parent then it's probably charity, not a
business.

------
gcheong
So it's OK to be an acquirer of companies (Apple, MS, Oracle, Berkshire), but
it's not OK to sell out to one?

~~~
tptacek
Yes. That is what he is saying. What's the problem with that logic?

~~~
gcheong
1\. In order for there to be a market, there have to be both buyers and
sellers, so being a seller creates value and is a good thing.

2\. He is saying that if you are a buyer then you are doing it "for the
vision", but if you are a seller then you are doing it just for "a quick
flip". I doubt that very much.

~~~
isleyaardvark
There doesn't have to be a market in startups. What is a startup trying to
sell, their product or their shares? The lines can blur a bit, but ultimately
it's the buyer that's going to take the product forward in the market and
generate the value.

------
cookiecaper
An interesting perspective, I guess. He seems to be saying that he's in it for
the fame and the glory, which I guess is fine if that's his preference.
Practicality suggests taking a good payout when it appears, but of course
every circumstance is different and requires individual consideration.

For the record, many of the listed business leaders have sold businesses, and
considered selling their flagship businesses but felt the offers were too low.
I remember reading this specifically about Google, but don't want to find a
source (searching "google acquisition" isn't really helpful these days). Jobs
sold NeXT; I think he would have sold NeXT even if Apple was not the buyer.
etc.

Buffet et al are driven by practicality. Dynastic ambitions are an obstruction
on the way to Buffet's status.

~~~
dhh
Oh, make no mistake. I'm in it for the money too. But I think there's more
money to be made owning my own company for the next twenty years than there is
selling it for 10-15 times today profits (the realistic, going price for
profitable software companies).

------
jasonlbaptiste
We need more people building Empires.

~~~
donaq
Yes, because without Empires, there would be no need for Jedi and then where
would we be?

------
hkuo
I think DHH on Jason's Twist show left an opening that could make him do an
about-turn at any time.

First, he says he would never sell the company, not for 150 million dollars,
because he's not in it for the money. So, ok, he won't sell the company.

However, he also said, you should always be working on your best idea. If
you're not working on your best idea, then you're doing it wrong.

He says that 37 signals and its products are his best ideas.

Ok, following me? If one day, he came up with some idea out of the blue, out
of inspiration, out of some life-changing event, out of...wherever.... and
that turned out to be a better idea than 37 signals....ummmm then what?

Then he should sell his company to go work on that "best idea". No?

~~~
borism
1\. they already have quite a few products at 37signals

2\. he addressed that - at least this idea works for them right now and had
for past 10 years

3\. starting from scratch now will not yield answer to whether new idea was
better in next 10 years

~~~
hkuo
I'm not talking about an idea that can fall under the 37signals brand. I'm
talking about an idea completely out of left field. For example, what if he
suddenly was enlightened with how he could solve world hunger? Or a completely
new form of alternative energy that could be easily and quickly distributed?

You wouldn't exactly have a 37 signals homepage that showcases Basecamp,
Highrise, Backpack, Campfire, and now introducing World Feed, the solution to
World Hunger!

------
donaq
_Selling your company only makes sense if you think they can do a better job
than you can._

There's nothing wrong with that. The person who's consistently able to spot
talent may not be good at nurturing said talent. That's why some people are
headhunters and others are coaches. It has nothing to do with meekness.

------
Tichy
I don't know - I guess if you want to sell, sell, if you don't want to sell,
don't sell? Why does it even concern other people?

------
jamesshamenski
This post is way off.

Each of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet have created 3+ billion dollar
businesses each. Steve and Warren have sold multiple companies when the prices
rose above 1 billion. Larry treats sailing and real estate like a startup
designed to flip as well.

------
petercooper
For the record, _anything_ I own is "for sale" at the right price. (And no, I
don't consider that I "own" my wife or daughter :-))

------
jraines
Chris Rock is wrong: Shaq is wealthy.

~~~
antidaily
I looked this up. Shaq's net worth is $130 million. The Cavs owner, Dan
Gilbert is worth about $1 Billion.

