"Competent to execute" is far more important than "working hard enough." Elon Musk splits his life between Tesla, Solarcity (now part of Tesla, but essentially independent), The Boring Company, SpaceX, and Neuralink. He also dabbles in a slew of other projects. That means he works at most 8 hours per week on each of those. Is that working hard? It's hardly working.
Unless you've done a circuit where you've been in many roles in companies, and have experience in tech, marketing, management, sales, finance, legal, etc. running your first startup is almost guaranteed to bomb, but you're also almost guaranteed to pick up some of that experience. The basic model -- many risks, a few successes -- is great for both personal growth and being a successful entrepreneur. Indeed, I'll say Elon is partially successful because he can leverage experience across those companies.
I do agree many people aren't in a position to do this. Restrictive employment agreements, financial obligations, and family obligations certainly can eat you up alive.
And it is you that is missing the point. Many of us cannot try enough times to succeed. As stated in another comment, if I try 2-3 times and fail I am back to not only square one, but maybe on the street.
A lot of the more successful entrepreneurs I know operate a lot like Elon Musk. The basic model seems to be to:
* Start a project in spare time
* Validate technology (prototype something)
* Validate market demand (talk to customers)
* Validate business model (estimate costs/revenues/etc.)
* Otherwise mitigate risk as appropriate for the business
Most of these are pretty deep dives; it's not a one-evening project. In most cases, people (like Elon) become minor domain experts. On the other hand, these are also not job-quitting deep dives; one isn't on the street if one fails.
Perhaps for every few dozen such deep dives, something which looks really plausible comes up. From that point, it's largely a matter of good execution.
I think the key difference between my friends and Elon is that Elon tries to do Really Big Things which change the world. My friends might start a business which e.g. applies machine vision to a new vertical, or adds some kind of automation to some industrial process, or similar.
At this point, all have lives, families, etc. and aren't working 70+ hour weeks. Failure rates for their businesses aren't all too high either. Most business they start seem to at least pay the bills for the boss and the employees (with a few much bigger successes, and a few failures).
I'm not saying that's most folks, but that is most folks in my community. But they've universally managed people before, they can code well, they can do math well, they've built out a reasonable network of contacts, etc.
You have to look at the other side of the equation too: expenses and family structures.
$200k euros in the bank is a ton if you're a single student. It's a very short runway if you have 6k/month in mortgage, 2k/month in childcare, car costs, educational debt, and so on.
Unfortunately, most people don't have that type of savings until they're also saddled with obligations.
Nope. I've seen plenty of successful companies bumble around and have dumb luck. The reverse is also true -- perfect execution is rare and almost guarantees success.
I'll reemphasize that even competent execution is rare; few people can execute perfectly on business AND technology AND marketing AND design AND .... Especially first-time entrepreneurs.
Fortunately, the other guy's deeply imperfect too. In capitalism, you just have to be better than the other guy. It's pretty hard -- the other guy has been at it for a while and you're just starting out, but it's far from impossible. Most businesses execute very poorly.
Fortunately, each time you try to execute, you get a little bit better at all of those, so after a few tries, you can out-execute. You also learn the advantages smaller, more agile players have over bigger ones.
Execution is an HN startup meme. Correctly: most businesses execute very unluckily. You're hopelessly down the rabbit hole if you think skill has the most to do with it, it's total nonsense. VCs don't invest in skill, they invest in crapshoots. Skill is a prerequisite, luck is what makes people rich. Don't pretend otherwise or you'll make it more painful when you fail (99% of the time).
I've seen order-of-magnitude difference in abilities of companies to:
* Build products
* Sell products
* Recruit
* Build rapport with customers
* Evaluate business models
Most of that is ability. Few people have ability in /all/ of those directions. I've seen people who are even competent (not great) at all of those launch successful business after successful business.
By "successful" I don't mean billion dollar unicorn. I mean businesses which employ tens (or hundreds) of people, have millions in revenue, and last indefinitely.
This stuff isn't rocket science. If a Fortune 500 make widgets, and you make higher quality widgets at lower cost and make people aware of that, you'll run a sustainable business.
As a small business, on one hand, you'll have slightly less access to distribution and marketing channels. On the other hand, you'll have a much leaner cost model (no multi-layer executive hierarchies to sustain). Your team will also be much more focused, productive, and agile. You'll also be more risk-tolerant. All of those provide competitive advantages.
I wish we'd (as a whole) stop using quantitative terms for things that aren't quantifiable. We can all do that, it's easy and it makes us sound smart.
I've seen $100mm+ companies fail because Google decided not to like them anymore. I'm talking about external forces that are far more powerful than execution. And there are lots of 'em (an infinity, even!).
External forces happen. I've certainly seen businesses shut down for reasons outside of their control. It's just that this happens a minority of the time. Most of the time, businesses shut down either because:
1. High-risk venture. Someone wants to be the next Facebook and takes a 1-in-a-100 gamble at a billion dollars.
2. Stupid idea/business model. Founder is a true believer in some idea which doesn't match reality.
3. Poor execution. It's a good idea and business model, but any of the hundred things which can shut down a business do: technology takes 10x as long to develop and is buggy; founder fails to recruit good people; zero external sales/visibility/marketing ("if you build it they will come" or wildly implausible assumptions about viral or similar); costs get out-of-control; etc. Most founders I know can do all of those reasonably, and one or two brilliantly. It's hard for me to emphasize how important (and hard) it is to be at least competent at all of those since messing up any one will shut down a company.
It almost certainly is, and I sure hope the Apache Foundation starts to enforce their trademark. Otherwise, they might lose it.
They have a trademark on "Apache" and even a lot of software under the "Apache Commons" brand. This is extremely confusing and clearly dilutes their branding.
I have no problem with Redis Labs prioritizing (although I think an AGPL dual license would be more appropriate). I have a serious, serious problem with the intentional confusion they're spreading.
On the whole, I think this will backfire. Redis Labs undercut their credibility. I'm unlikely to do business with a company I don't trust. The main value-add of being the official developer of an open source product is that trust. A lot of that is likely to spill over on Redis itself.
I don't think that's what's being suggested. The idea that redlining should be reexamined by the courts every half century or so is what's being suggested. In 2018, courts ought to find its still illegal give facebook a book fine. In 2118? Hopefully we'll be past racism and courts will find the concept obsolete and antiquated. Or they may find racism is common but the tools needed to manage it are different.
The Internet has a great search for secret closet racists, but they're pretty rare. For the most part, it makes sense to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Having been in a mixed-race relationship where one partner is brown, I can tell you firsthandedly that if you think racism is rare, then you’re probably white or Asian or you have consistently lived in areas where racism is actually rare. I lived in places where when I was young, I never saw anyone engage in racist behaviors. This changed the moment I entered that relationship. It may have ended long ago, but it’s definitely made me more aware of the subtle ways that people show prejudice when it’s not outright. Is it a majority? No. At least one in ten? Much closer to reality. We’ve got a long way to go, even still. Don’t forget that schools were still segregated in America less than a century ago — there are leaders in government and industry that grew up in that environment. You’ve got at least two generations to die off before we can really say that the impacts of that era are negligible.
Definitely not the implication. Everyone can receive racially charged behavior, however the outright hostility towards lighter-skinned Asians in the United States is significantly lower than towards other minority groups as well as darker-skinned Asians.
I guess, as a man of color I'm hesitant to create some sort of ranking system as to "who's getting whipped harder" as a metric when it comes to racial discrimination of all its permutations.
To be fair, the system works pretty well on the whole. One of the reasons I switch to Uber/Lyft because of the extreme attention on customer service. Drivers are very motivated to keep customers happy. That's a big difference to cab rides.
I've had many one-star cab rides (joy ride several times as long, verbally abusive, etc.). I've only had one bad experience on a Lyft/Uber. But the quality of the typical experience is much higher too.
It's imperfect, but I think the problem is more with:
* unreasonable performance thresholds;
* misuse of statistical significance;
* use of data in isolation; and
* misuse of data
The other issues described mostly wash out after a few hundred rides. On the other hand, automatically firing people who fall below 4.6 stars without so much as a conversation is a little bit insane. On the other hand, many human managers do things which are insane too; nothing's perfect.
On the whole, eBay has been pretty reliable for me due to ratings, but I did get cheated twice because of similar misuse.
In one case, I ordered a premium item for about 50 bucks. They sent a low-end item which costs about 10 bucks. It wasn't obvious; for the most part, people wouldn't realize it until months later. Most ratings were high, with maybe 1 in 100 people pointing out the item was not as advertised.
eBay wasn't concerned. Credit card required an expert appraisal. Federal trade commission doesn't deal with this sort of thing. Seller appeared to be raking in about $500k per year profit on fraud. After no one cared, I decided to follow eBay's, credit card's, and FTC's lead, and say that for $50, it wasn't worth my time either.
But I stopped shopping for anything which could be forged on eBay (chemicals, fabrics, materials, jewelry, SD cards, etc.).
If eBay combined normal mechanisms with ratings, it'd be pretty easy to stay reliable. Alibaba does this -- there's a real conflict resolution process.
I have similar use cases. Startup time starts to matter once you either want to build test cases or put scripts in loops. If I have a script that parses one big data file, and I decide to parse 1000, it's often helpful if I can run that script a thousand times rather than refactor it to handle file lists. Or if you want to optimize some parameter.
.... Or they could have made play areas kids wanted to go to (when I was a child, going to Toys-r-Us was the ultimate thing), and sold toys people wanted (instead of branded sensory-overload crap).
I am just not sure that would save this business model though.
IMO it is very much like Guitar Center for music. There is no way Guitar Center is around in 10 years and there is nothing that can be done on their part. The whole concept that the business is based on is outdated.
I'm curious what it is about Guitar Center that you're saying is outdated:
I would think buying an instrument demands at least some hands-on experience to confirm your choice, but not many parents are concerned with giving their kids a test drive of new toys before purchase (and indeed can't, due to packaging).
People hate Circuit City. Not quite clear why you'd want to start with a hated brandname. There was the whole restocking fee thing, the DMCA thing, and a whole bunch of others. I don't quite recall them all. Plus, it was always overpriced.
"Competent to execute" is far more important than "working hard enough." Elon Musk splits his life between Tesla, Solarcity (now part of Tesla, but essentially independent), The Boring Company, SpaceX, and Neuralink. He also dabbles in a slew of other projects. That means he works at most 8 hours per week on each of those. Is that working hard? It's hardly working.
Unless you've done a circuit where you've been in many roles in companies, and have experience in tech, marketing, management, sales, finance, legal, etc. running your first startup is almost guaranteed to bomb, but you're also almost guaranteed to pick up some of that experience. The basic model -- many risks, a few successes -- is great for both personal growth and being a successful entrepreneur. Indeed, I'll say Elon is partially successful because he can leverage experience across those companies.
I do agree many people aren't in a position to do this. Restrictive employment agreements, financial obligations, and family obligations certainly can eat you up alive.