Hacker News Reader

Comment by sethjohn | Hacker News Reader

'Build to flip' is a fine idea. Of course you still need to make a good product, but I don't think 'build to last' is right for every company or every idea. A world with 100 new HPs every year would be top-heavy.

The ecosystem needs a few big companies with billions of capital and global reach, but there's nothing wrong with building up a good small idea and selling it off after a year or two to be integrated into something larger.

View on HN

A world with 100 new HPs every year? That would mean excellent and enlightened corporate leadership that provides meaning, freedom and security for those that associate and work for the company. A situation where the corporatocracy contributes to the well-being of society and the environment, and takes responsobility for it's wrong-doings.

I agree that Built to Last not all companies, for sure. Collins outlined that in his article. But a world with 100 new HPs every year? It will never happen. It would be too good to be true. You don't get much enlightened leadership anymore. It is a rare thing, unfortunately.

The article's purpose was not to say that Built to Flip is wrong, or that Built to Last was right. It was to educate us to build something that works, but also to inspire us to build something greater than ourselves.

I agree with that. There is nothing wrong with selling your company, but if you start your company hoping to sell it for millions in a year, it seems like you're just setting yourself up for trouble.

Well, yes, the 12-month selloff strategy is probably uncommon for good reason.

I suppose most ideas require more than a few months to create real value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com