[larrys]

I'd love a post on how the price was set at 480k and why specifically you weren't willing to sell for anything less than that figure. Why you drew that line in the sand. Must have been more going on here than meets the eye.

If I had to guess I'd would say that the people who bought the site had offered 480k but you didn't want to say that you had a solid offer for a certain amount. Speculating that you told them you would sell to them at that price if a better offer didn't come in. This seems to dovetail with the somewhat cavalier attitude of previous posts and 37signals principals HN comments.

"despite the HN peanut gallery's perception of the world, there is actually a market for profitable businesses."

I've bought and sold several businesses both as the business owner and as a go between (collecting a commission for the sale of a business).

[dhh]

Yeah, you got us figured out. We had an offer, sat on it, invented this story to see if we could get more, and played the world for a fool. BUT YOU BUSTED US. OH NOOOOES!

Or, of course, the simpler explanation: We thought the site was worth at least 2x the previous year's take. And if we didn't get that, it wasn't worth our time to deal with the transaction.

[larrys]

I have no idea what I said to get a response like that.

There is nothing wrong with what I proposed as a reason and it certainly doesn't rise to the level of "played the world for a fool." in any way.

"We thought the site was worth at least 2x the previous year's take. And if we didn't get that, it wasn't worth our time to deal with the transaction."

"it wasn't worth our time to deal with the transaction."

Your attitude is a total outlier. Enjoy your arrogance. You've got plenty of years to go to see how that works going forward.

[dhh]

You have no idea? You launched wild accusations that we were just playing everyone with our proposal and that we actually just had a buyer all along. If we had a buyer at $480K, we would not have bothered listing it again. We would just have sold it.

I think the only reason why you consider my attitude an outlier is because I state it. Every business have a cut off point where a potential return is not worth the hassle. $480K was that number for us. I'll guarantee you that it's much, much higher for most other businesses.

Do you think Apple is going to fiddle through $200K purchase negotiations if they want to diverse themselves of a product? Of course not. Just not worth their time.

I'm happy how things have worked out for me so far, but thanks for caring.

[larrys]

"wild accusations that we were just playing everyone"

You are 100% incorrect as to what I actually did and why. In business what I had suggested as a possibility is not something that would be frowned upon at all. It's the way business is done quite frequently. Do you think games aren't played in business and especially in negotiation? Consequently I wasn't being critical at all according to the way I viewed what you did. I looked at it in a positive way.

I've been negotiating for about 37 years and think about it every day and even as a hobby study the actions of a wide variety of individuals and companies. I don't claim to know what you know about programming or rise to your level of proficiency since it's what you do and I would never challenge you on that. But I do know about negotiating and business.

The "speculation" that I had was based on my experience. I even called it "speculation" and started my statement by saying "I'd love a post on how the price was set". That hardly sounds like it is coming from someone making "wild accusations".

As an aside I don't think that it supports your point to compare your situation to Apple and use the number 200k. Obviously.

[ForrestN]

Err, I think what he means is that you implied that 37Signals was lying, that they pretended not to have a buyer, and to be considering shuttering the site, when in fact they knew that they had a buyer. I can only speak for myself, but if that were proven, I would certainly frown upon it.

I think a lot of 37Signals' brand, and a lot of its relationship with its audience, comes from their transparency and straightforwardness. I think that context also adds to the sensitivity. If it came out that they were lying to the public, it would be detrimental to them for sure.

Not saying DHH answered in the best way possible, or that you did anything "wrong," but you are squirming around the fact that you speculated publicly about them doing something untoward.

[mnicole]

Don't take it too harshly, the site is the equivalent of the web design listings on CraigsList without the extra clicks.

[taylort]

And DHH is not exactly known for his tact.

[mikescar]

If I was being called out as a liar after being very public about a business deal, I would lose my sense of tact also.

Seriously, how much of the hate is from folks that will never have this opportunity, wouldn't do it the same way even if they did, and just want to complain?

[ascendant]

He's a multi-millionaire and was able to do it while acting this way. Therefore his previous experience is that acting like that will continue making him exceedingly wealthy. Getting angry about it won't do any good, you might as well just ignore him. I'm trying to say this in the most neutral, scientific way possible.

[ascendant]

Also note, he has a pretty well established disdain for the entire VC-funded startup model, and Hacker News in general. If you expect him to be polite here, I think you have some misplaced expectations. Not that I'm excusing it, just not losing any sleep over it.