I just heard Drew Houston of DropBox talk in Boston at StartupBootcamp and this resume rings true to what he said.
The reality is that every founder starts in the same place and at the same point, which is completely clueless. Apple, Google, Yahoo, Oracle, Facebook and many others were started by first time founders in their 20’s. Facebook was just a project that Zuckerbug was hacking on, and he didn’t’ set out to redefine the face of communication. He had done 7-8 other projects before that, and the difference with Facebook was that 90%+ of Harvard students sign up in two days.
Something all new founders should remember is that no one is born a founder.
That's sorta true, but only applies to specific technical & domain skills needed by your industry. There are a lot of "soft" skills needed to found a successful company, and entrepreneurs start in wildly different places for this.
DropBox was Drew's second company, and I remember him saying that his experience with the first and the intervening jobs was what made him so determined to do it "right" this time and have the persistence to stick it out. Facebook was Zuckerburg's third company; he'd already had acquisition offers from Microsoft for his second (Synapse Media Player). Apple was Steve & Steve's second company together; the first was selling blue-boxes. Google was started by first-time founders, but they were first-time founders who had the background and upbringing to have confidence in themselves and believe they could change the world.
I completely agree with you. Most of the time founders have no clue of what they are doing or how to do it. Most start with a simple idea or problem to solve and then start doing something about it with no plans or roadmap. Like Google for example, it started as a simple phD project and is now the most visited website in the world worth billions of dollars.
Back in 1998 Brin and Page had no idea of what they would accomplish with Google. Or Mark, which coded a website that million of coders could code. The difference is that he met the right people and persevered.
But that is why it is so fun to be a founder, you never know what to expect or how far you can go. Its scary and fun.
The constant among those companies/founders is that they were started by technical/engineer founders. IMHO, tech companies should at least have 1 technical co-founder. I'm sure someone has data around the correlation between success of web/internet companies and whether or not they had a technical co-founder.
Not to nitpick, but founding Google doesn't automatically qualify you for a job at any large company, as the article states.
Not that I would refuse him a job... but it would require the same interview process as anyone, because I need to find out what he knows about my industry, what his current skills truly are, learn his philosophies, and find out how he would fit culturally.
Even brilliant people are sometimes crappy fits for the specific roles a large company may have to offer.
I tend to take the advice of people who have run more companies than I have, and they would not agree:
"I used to fall in love with everyone I interviewed and I'd say, 'We can make anybody successful' or 'We can find a job for any talented person.' And that's just completely wrong and a really bad idea. HR people should figure out job descriptions. God forbid I should ever do that."
- Howard Tullman, founder of Experiencia, Tribeca Flashpoint Academy, The Cobalt Group and Tunes.com (Tullman sold his first company in 1987 for $100 million)
jordan actually could have been a great baseball player. there is a documentary about it and people who were initially very skeptical eventually changed their mind. he would have gone to the majors, but there was a strike. this example is more in the camp of hire great people if you can.
This is getting way OT but I can assure you the odds of him becoming even an occasional PGA Tour player are not even remotely as good as they were for him to make an MLB roster (of course, at the time he retired from basketball). If the GP is overstating, you are massively overstating his golfing abilities.
That's the risk every entrepreneur takes. Next time you need a job you have have a 10 year 'gap' in your resume.
Other than founding Google, their supposedly big ideas are just on gambling shareholder's money and make more money via Google in suspicious way. Search still makes 97% of their money, Android was * from others and market share is being lost to Microsoft.
Adsense relatively makes little since they pay most to site-owners, whatever they call the ads on Google make the money. After 11 years has, Google has what, other than search?
Google can disappear tomorrow and Bing, Blekko and DDG can take over. Webmasters will get more traffic since all have way less ads than Google, and that's about it.
You know what happened after the fall of the Roman empire, do you?
"Google Network Revenues - Google's partner sites generated revenues, through AdSense programs, of $2.50 billion, or 30% of total revenues, in the fourth quarter of 2010. This represents a 22% increase from fourth quarter 2009 network revenues of $2.04 billion."
If publishers are paid 68%, this means Google's share is roughly $650mill for that quarter.
To me, the interesting thing about this is that his resume is so... so ordinary. Ordinary in the sense that there are a great many smart graduate students who have done some interesting summer internships, have some neat projects, and are working on publications.
So here we have a guy who, on paper, is basically like any of the rest of us, and he decides to start his own business.
The links on his page aren't there so that he can prove that he is involved in the community so that he could get a phone screen for another job so that he could impress an interviewer with his great whiteboard-tree-manipulation skills. (I mean yes, obviously it is a resume, which serves that purpose, but sans all of the fancy stuff you read about on HN to enhance your professional identity.)
Which, for me, is an affirmation (inspiration?) that maybe rather than spending my time memorizing CLRS or forking another github project in order to build a credential, I should write my own algorithm, create my own github repo, and build not another paper credential but something great.
This was very reassuring / inspiring for me... Goes to show you that we all have to start somewhere and we shouldn't spend our formative years worrying about experience and credentials before we try to start something.
I think Stanford and his experience at Wolfram would be bright spots on any resume. What this resume does is imply that he is very smart, which is more important than experience for any startup.
"The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users," so let's make some more money. Let's not send visitors to sites anymore! Brilliant!
I'm having a hard time parsing your post. The passage you quoted concerns cases where advertisers might not like the material on sites that rank highly in search results.
> so let's make some more money. Let's not send visitors to sites anymore!
You seem to be accusing Google of something, but I can't tell what. (Google sends me to sites all the time. I'm also not aware of accusations that advertisers affect results.)
The reality is that every founder starts in the same place and at the same point, which is completely clueless. Apple, Google, Yahoo, Oracle, Facebook and many others were started by first time founders in their 20’s. Facebook was just a project that Zuckerbug was hacking on, and he didn’t’ set out to redefine the face of communication. He had done 7-8 other projects before that, and the difference with Facebook was that 90%+ of Harvard students sign up in two days.
Something all new founders should remember is that no one is born a founder.