undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmcintyre199411y ago0 comments

I guess what I'm not convinced about is that the pledge really means much. A company says it has everything under control and will keep on for a few years, great. But what if it doesn't really? It'll presumably shut down at some point if it keeps doing badly, and then what? All it really says is they have these values and think they'll last, but there's nothing really truly backing that.

Making the pledges individually seems to make sense - I don't think long term support is something many startups can seriously offer and it feels like selling smoke to try to sell that in the typical case.

Making them retractable with user knowledge also seems fair - although retracting LTS just before shutting down isn't really meaningful.

I think really my concerns are probably just around LTS, which I think is really unrealistic for most startups to guarantee - and ultimately meaningless if they fail anyway. The other pledges just seem to make acquisitions/pivots less likely and thus shutting down more likely - screwing over the LTS pledge again.

I can see why it'd give some users confidence but ultimately at least with LTS it just seems to end up being a buzzword selling point with nothing really behind it.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

jamesisaac11y ago· 1 in thread

Yeah, LTS is quite different from the others. It's the only one which can't be retracted, btw. A startup should only commit to LTS if they're willing to keep the funds aside to keep the service running for existing users for X years (they can close off new registrations or whatever - it's just a commitment to existing users - they could even fully pivot just so long as they keep the legacy system running alongside).

You're right that the system is no way foolproof, I do think it's an improvement over the current situation though, and a step towards more accountability.

It's really just based on trust - like how many people now distrust Facebook over privacy issues (even though Facebook never really promised anything). If a founder were to commit to these pledges, then go and break them, they could probably expect a similar type of distrust in their future ventures.

mcintyre1994OP11y ago

I've kept thinking about this because I feel like I'm being overly critical of your idea - but I equally don't think skepticism toward the claims of startup founders is particularly unhealthy.

I suspect it's a case of messaging - and as you said trust. If I were looking at a startup of yours, knowing you were OP here, and saw those pledges I feel like I'd take them seriously. If I saw them on a typical landing page I'd probably dismiss them. That said I guess a founder who can hope to follow through on these should probably be able to control their messaging and convince me.

On another note though I'm not convinced it'd really affect future ventures - I don't think that outside the SV/HN bubble people really know or care who founders of startups/companies are. I suspect if you took a typical Series A startup most of its users would probably have as much chance of knowing its investors as its founders.

That definitely doesn't make it pointless though - I think it was a mistake for me to call it that. It's a case of messaging and trust and I suspect most startups would fail the litmus test of convincing me they mean anything.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse