This is not something to be idolized. Maybe it works for Jack, or maybe it's really exaggerated but there are going to be people reading this that are going to want to try it. I feel bad for those people. Your first instinct is to think that you can't succeed without killing yourself. Then you figure out that if you're killing yourself youve forgotten why you started to begin with.
That's exactly what I was thinking while reading this. The person who wrote this article just sees things at the surface, and lacks any insight/depth into the long term consequences. Jack Dorsey may be a freak, but for most people, working this long leads to mental breakdowns, and health problems. It makes for great journalism, but that's about all.
Agreed. I see a lot of articles that scare me lately. They make it sound like business owners should do these things. These stories are the exception, not the rule.
He's still building Twitter and Square. Jobs never stopped building Apple.
Building companies goes well beyond building apps.
This comes up frequently on HN and seems to polarize people. The more it polarizes people the more on the fence I seem to find myself. I have worked similar hours split between two companies for four years. At times it sucks and at times it's great. Everyone is different.
From what I have learned from others, exceptional results require exceptional work and passion. Working 16 hours days is how it works for Jack. Ben Hogan was reported to work with a similar ethic when he started his golf career and he's now known among many as the greatest ball striker ever.
To me that's admirable, to others it isn't. Both positions are acceptable.
Of course it does, but he isn't the only one doing it anymore, and I suspect has a team of people at each company that assists and supports throughout the day, which was likely not the case in the very early days of twitter.
The required mental focus and energy to get one thing "off the ground" - past bootstrapped startup phase - is considerably different from keeping something going - and even growing - once it's hit an operational level that twitter has. I won't profess to know both sides from direct experience, but can see that they're not in the same place they were operationally/financially as they were 4 years ago.
OT: I was probably downvoted by someone who considers Twitter and Facebook as "startups".
His weekly schedule looks awful. I would never want to live a life like this. Hope his example does not turn into something that is expected from people.
I work a job as a software engineer and do computer science engineering studies at the same time. Although I don't do nearly the hours Mr. Dorsey does, I'm still physically and mentally exhausted. And like Mr. Dorsey, I love what I do, but it's still very hard on me.
I think you succeed by being better than enough other people. If there are enough people this good willing to make that sort of sacrifice, it just makes it that much harder for the competition to keep up.
That might be true but hes not doing this alone. Hes the one making the decisions and the strategy but Square has >100 employees and Twitter has like what ? 600 ?
This would be true if a big percentage of all the employees would be putting in these kind of hours, but i highly doubt thats the case.
Also it doesnt factor in luck, which is a big part of startup success. Could Jack have pulled off Square as a nobody without the help of twitter ? I guess not.
You could have started a Square Competitor at the same time as him, working even harder with all your people and even if you had the better product, you most probably wouldnt have won.
