[AndrewKemendo]

Perfectly encapsulated in this tweet:

18: Go to Harvard or Stanford for CS.

22: Work at FAANG companies.

25: Quit and raise millions for your startup.

26: Sell your company to a FAANG company/IPO

28: Join a VC firm, invest in people like you, and make predictions on Twitter all day.

https://twitter.com/TheLexTimes/status/1105131411411886081

[randomacct3847]

I think this has become outdated. From my experience FAANGs are largely filled with people who are risk-adverse, which is why it makes sense to me that the next gen of startups will come from alumni of successful unicorns given the risk-seeking attitude you had to have in the first place to join one of those cos earlier on.

I mean how many ex—Amazon founders do you see? Probably not at all in proportion to the number of alumni relative to all VC funded cos.

[akhilcacharya]

>I mean how many ex—Amazon founders do you see? Probably not at all in proportion to the number of alumni relative to all VC funded cos.

Is there a reason to single out Amazon specifically? Because I’ve heard of lots of Xoogler founders and exFB founders.

[solarkraft]

Amazon isn't a unicorn in the sense of people placing extremely high expectations on it and pumping it full of money. Instead they're simply re-investing the money they make. At an impressive rate, but steadily and with not so much risk if they mess up a new venture.

[JoeSmithson]

I understand this is off topic but does Netflix ever actually acquire startups?

They are a very different company to Facebook, Apple, Amazon or Google, I feel like they are bundled in mainly to make a cooler acronym.

[sharkweek]

I don’t get why Microsoft isn’t one of the letters. I get that it needs to be easy to say but still.

[detaro]

Because the acronym comes from stock markets, when FAANG were hot tech stocks. Microsoft already was old and boring at that point, so didn't count.

[0815test]

Isn't Apple about as old as Microsoft? Or is it "Amazon & Airbnb"?

[detaro]

"hot" doesn't necessarily mean new: Amazon also wasn't new on the stock markets, but it was on a clear upwards trend, as was Apple. Apple had iPhones/iPads, entirely new worlds, Microsoft had ... yet another Windows?

[yeahitslikethat]

Old maybe, but not boring. Their tech stack is still the best there is.

[chillacy]

You and I have heard different things but I suppose those who don’t like it are more likely to leave and then tell me horror stories.

[solarkraft]

I'm sure many would call it crusty.

[baxtr]

How about FAMANG?

[mrep]

French media uses GAFAM and their wiki on it is hilarious [0].

[0]: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAFAM

[jameslevy]

Or just a less offensive acronym.

[adamnemecek]

How is it offensive?

[jayd16]

How about AFGA, then.

[mcguire]

Call them AGFA and we can buy film from them.

[nsukato]

That was possible only when working at FAANG was very impressive. Hasn’t been true since 2005.

[pdog]

I don't get it. Should highly capable people not pursue a lucrative career path?

[jim_grue_wisc]

I think the tweet is implying that 99% of the "leaders" and "brilliant successes" in our "creative, innovative, disruptive" industry are in fact a coterie of not-very-remarkable, yet very-privileged, 30-somethings whose achievements rest on a combination of luck and having made the most soulless and conformist career decisions available.

[Judgmentality]

People can do whatever they want, but if they're truly "highly capable" maybe they should try something a little more challenging than following the herd?

I hold no ill will against all of these people getting rich this way. Let's just not pretend like they're innovators, though.

[pdog]

I still don't get it. Are the CS programs at Stanford and Harvard not challenging enough? Are Google and Facebook not demanding places to work?

[adamnemecek]

They aren’t compared with your own startup.

[Jasper_]

When "success" means having your product shut down and getting yourself acquihired, we as an industry need to find a better definition of success.