[ryanwaggoner]

Wait, so he’s following the classic playbook about how to screw over your users and get away with it, but he also forgot to read and follow the part where he gets away with it?

Isn’t it more likely that he just made a mistake, realized it, and apologized? You can reject the apology, of course, but it doesn’t seem like you have any evidence that it’s not genuine. In fact, the evidence you claim (“classic playbook”) you then invalidate immediately after (“he clearly forgot half the playbook”).

If someone makes a mistake, is there just nothing they can do to ever convince you it was not pure maliciousness? It seems like even an apology is then taken as evidence of ill intent. Why would anyone ever reverse course or apologize under your view?

[GhostVII]

I think the reason why this seems more likely to be malice is because the CEO's initial reaction to the backlash was not to listen to and understand the feedback, but to repeatedly try and justify their actions. To go from commenting all over hacker news about how you aren't doing anything wrong, to sending out an email completely reversing your decision a couple days later, makes it seem like the apology was more motivated by trying to do damage control rather than genuinely thinking their actions were wrong.

[ryanwaggoner]

I was on the original thread. He made a few comments over the course of a couple hours, if that. He wasn’t “all over Hacker News”.

[mthoms]

You're right that the CEO wasn't “all over Hacker News”.

But the parent is indeed correct in implying that the comments he did make were anything but receptive or conciliatory.

[ryanwaggoner]

Right, but that seems completely in keeping with his version of events. They announce this is coming without much consideration and then later he finds himself under scathing attack from HN, reacts badly and leaves some defensive comments, then takes a couple days to think about it, realizes he was wrong, writes a very good apology email.

That all makes sense, this isn’t the end of the world, can we just move on, please?

[GhostVII]

Yea that's fair

[trfhuhg]

Often, the driving force of such moves is not the founders, but investors: the company accepted a generous investment in past and had to sign a contract where the investor may wind up the company if the returns are low. In other words, it could be that Ammon was given a choice: triple profits by end of year or sell his share.

Regarding your question. Mistakes and apologies are words from the lexicon of normal emotional people. Companies, on the other hand, are soulless profit driven maniacs and their lexicon has words justifiable, plausible and profitable. When a company gives an apology, it's because it deems this combination of words the most efficient way to influence its user base and minimize damage (to profits) just done. People who run companies usually embrace this mindset if they want to get rich.

[solidasparagus]

> it could be that Ammon was given a choice: triple profits by end of year or sell his share

That seems unbelievably unlikely.

[thenaturalist]

Pardon my ignorance, but what insight or experience leads you to this conclusion?

Venture capital is quite the opposite of passive investing. I guess everyone on here is well aware investors are not doing it for fun but first and foremost for protecting and, ideally, multiplying their assets.

[solidasparagus]

I doubt many VCs would see swapping out a founder as improving the outlook of the company, particularly when the issue is the general macroeconomic situation rather than an issue with the founder. Founders are a huge part of the valuation of a company - they've spent years learning their market and how to build/run their company. Once a company hits a certain size, you'll see professional CEOs brought on sometimes, but I would think Triplebyte is too small for that. At ~30 people would the company even survive founders being replaced by VCs?

VCs also like to be able to attract the best founders by being 'founder-friendly' and replacing a founder hurts that image. Starting a company is hard enough - you don't really want investors who add to the pressure.

From what I've heard, COVID seems to have stopped new investments (outside of companies that have gotten a boost from COVID) so that VCs can focus on their existing portfolios.

[renewiltord]

Are you in a position where you have been offered this? No founder I know has.