I’m not entirely sure about this. The author’s points do make sense on some level, but maybe his experiences don’t really lead to such generalizations. To what extent what he’s gone through is the outcome of personal choices and not "rules of the game"?
First, he appears to suggest that one should not go into business with friends. I’ve actually had a positive experience working with my friends, largely because I choose decent, hard-working people to be my friends and that’s exactly the type of people I want to work with. Also, I like to become friends with people I work with. Does that mean I should fire them or quit the job once I think of them as my friends? Surely, the team should differentiate between the relationships they have during and after working hours, but in my opinion and experience, the concepts are not exclusive. What’s important is clarity of expectations and defined relationships.
Second, the democracy of a startup is sometimes exactly the reason why people choose to join the venture. Let’s face it, distant promises of great fortunes only feed the gut, not the stomach. So people join to have a say. They can task for someone elsewhere and with pay. How much extra equity does the idea entitle the person to anyways? To deal with the issue, though, the team should have clearly defined areas of competence / leadership. The author may have led the way with the business plan creation, whereas someone else took the responsibility for the development.
All in all, it’s unfortunate that the author had to go through this, but I am not yet ready to follow all of his suggestions.
Also consider the tax implications and the biggest payday goes to the Department of the Treasury. So, even though there was a transfer in asset categories, it wasn’t one-for-one.
It’s funny how, to add drama to the article, the author writes, "Investors and Apple fanatics from as far as Wyoming and Pennsylvania and at least one child packed the company's auditorium." Is the "at least one child" comment necessary?! She does talk about Al Gore in the next sentence. Maybe that’s who she is implying. Hmm, I guess that reference to the child is really just political commentary.
The interesting point in the article is that in the response to the first and the last question Zuckerberg says that Facebook’s goal is to "help everyone in the world communicate more efficiently." I’m not sure if the users would articulate the company’s goal in those specific terms, if they were asked. I’d probably say that their its goal is to connect everybody.
You may want to compare the COLA (cost of living adjustments) between your current area of residence and the place you're expecting to move. I've moved a few times and that numbers seems to make sense in long term.
So the point of the upcoming tax relieve is to inject money into the economy via consumer spending to prevent the recession. Yet, at the same time, money is resting in the savings account of companies to protect them from the recession. These two approaches to dealing with the economy on behalf of the government and companies seem to contradict each other.
Also, isn’t the company’s goal to maximize shareholders’ return on their investments? Of course, one can make a case for storing cash to increase long-term returns, but if the company is retaining the cash for its sake, let the shareholders have it. I’d rather have the companies I invest in make me money; otherwise, I have a savings account on my own.
It's time to get to know your relatives better...eat dinner at their houses, they usually don't charge.
Suprisingly, you can find meals at local eateries that may not be at all more than the ingredients, let along the additional costs of time, electricity, supplies, and wasted food, when you have to throw it away, at least at the beginning. So, get to know your relatives and your local food places (you'll easily find ~$3 filling meals, depending on COLA).
What may help with being energized (outside of consuming substances) is subdividing the day's activities into defined tasks and taking breaks in-between. This gives the work a flow and helps to concentrate and be "in the moment."
I'm not sure if the conclusion of this piece necessarily follows. Instead, Andreessen seems to parallel the argument Stephen Covey makes in his Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, that is to be of value a person or a company has to be based on solid principles and values rather than the superficial attributes that seem "attractive". To follow the article's conclusion, though, would mean that if a company is for sale, it's not a good one. There are many valid reasons to be for sale.
As Benjamin Disraeli's quote goes, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Maybe, if we are in fact able to affect the climate to the extent that some argue we do, we should concentrate on developing the necessary pollution requirements to turn Greenland into Virginia.
First, he appears to suggest that one should not go into business with friends. I’ve actually had a positive experience working with my friends, largely because I choose decent, hard-working people to be my friends and that’s exactly the type of people I want to work with. Also, I like to become friends with people I work with. Does that mean I should fire them or quit the job once I think of them as my friends? Surely, the team should differentiate between the relationships they have during and after working hours, but in my opinion and experience, the concepts are not exclusive. What’s important is clarity of expectations and defined relationships.
Second, the democracy of a startup is sometimes exactly the reason why people choose to join the venture. Let’s face it, distant promises of great fortunes only feed the gut, not the stomach. So people join to have a say. They can task for someone elsewhere and with pay. How much extra equity does the idea entitle the person to anyways? To deal with the issue, though, the team should have clearly defined areas of competence / leadership. The author may have led the way with the business plan creation, whereas someone else took the responsibility for the development.
All in all, it’s unfortunate that the author had to go through this, but I am not yet ready to follow all of his suggestions.