doom sayeth:
--What actually staggers me is the amount of anti-Greenspun vitriol that doesn't seem to have any solid foundation behind it, at least not that anyone can put into words. What is it that inspires this kind of empty, free floating disgust? You'd think we were talking about Harlan Ellison.--
I've known Philip since 1979. It has always been the case that everyone he encounters either likes him a lot or can't stand him, for approximately the same reasons Harlan Ellison inspires these reactions.
The people who liked him a lot didn't always agree with him and sometimes criticized him severely when it was merited, but they valued his brilliance, generosity, and unique perspective. More interestingly, I found that the people who couldn't stand him shared common characteristics: a fragile ego, and a tendency to take things personally. They were also utterly unable to admit that Philip had ever done anything right or had anything useful to offer in any situation.
I find that more than 2 decades later, things are the same in many respects. In my opinion, Philip has matured a lot since entering MIT a month shy of his 16th birthday (as anyone would), but the major traits responsible for people's reactions to him (1.He says exactly what he thinks 2.He doesn't care what other people think of him 3.He is extremely smart and multitalented 4.He hates stupidity and incompetence) are still there.
People who are both smart enough and self-confident enough to stand up to Philip find that he is a great person to know and a loyal friend. He is not a great manager, as he has admitted frequently enough, and that's why he brought in professionals managers to run aD. But there has always been logic behind his ideas and decisions, and he is not so arrogant that he won't listen to good, technically informed criticism.
If you look at the substance of the criticisms of him here, they boil down to
1) "Philip insults people"
2) "Philip makes the wrong technical choices and won't listen to reason"
3) "Philip spends too much money"
4) "Philip is an arrogant egomaniac".
1) and 4) apply to any number of successful executives, but re 1) people with thick skins correctly figure out that Philip is not trying to destroy their egos, but is motivated by an extreme desire to get to the point and avoid time-wasting BS. Re 4), while this is true to some degree, many Greenspun-haters exaggerate this tremendously because their jealousy causes them to interpret any exposition whatsoever of his impressive career as in-your-face triumphalism.
Re 2), there doesn't seem to be much substance behind these claims. Philip has changed his mind often enough in response to experience or wise advice that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt re the particular technical disputes at aD. aD's business problems are not technical in nature, they involve marketing and overall direction.
Re 3), Bill Gates throws a lot of money at programmers too, and arsDigita was highly profitable until a year ago so Philip had plenty of money to throw at them. The fiscal hemorrhage since then has a cost component and a revenue component, but his contribution to those has been smaller because he has not been making the big decisions.
Keep in mind that ArsDigita was highly profitable when Philip was CEO. All of the things that looked liked extravagance (beach house retreat for
programmers, ArsDigita University, Ferrari prize for recruiting) could actually have been paid for from 1999 profits. ArsDigita had $20 million in
revenue and a fat profit when the venture capitalists came in.
The ironic thing is that most VC deals from the past few years were for companies struggling to figure out how to make money. The VCs would go in
and try to turn the company into something with a sustainable business and profits. Most of the time they weren't creative enough and failed, losing their investors $millions. In the handful of cases where they succeeded, they built things sort of like ArsDigita with Philip as CEO: $20 million in revenue, happy customers, profit. What is ironic is that the VCs turned ArsDigita from what they were always desperately trying to build themselves (a company with revenue and profits) into the kind of company that has historically lost them all their money (a company with an optimistic spreadsheet and revenue forecasts from not-yet-existing products).
Don't assume that merely because a VC made money in the go-go years of the 1990s that the VC therefore has any special knowledge of business.
Slashdot Mirror
doom sayeth:
--What actually staggers me is the amount of anti-Greenspun vitriol that doesn't seem to have any solid foundation behind it, at least not that anyone can put into words. What is it that inspires this kind of empty, free floating disgust? You'd think we were talking about Harlan Ellison.--
I've known Philip since 1979. It has always been the case that everyone he encounters either likes him a lot or can't stand him, for approximately the same reasons Harlan Ellison inspires these reactions.
The people who liked him a lot didn't always agree with him and sometimes criticized him severely when it was merited, but they valued his brilliance, generosity, and unique perspective. More interestingly, I found that the people who couldn't stand him shared common characteristics: a fragile ego, and a tendency to take things personally. They were also utterly unable to admit that Philip had ever done anything right or had anything useful to offer in any situation.
I find that more than 2 decades later, things are the same in many respects. In my opinion, Philip has matured a lot since entering MIT a month shy of his 16th birthday (as anyone would), but the major traits responsible for people's reactions to him (1.He says exactly what he thinks 2.He doesn't care what other people think of him 3.He is extremely smart and multitalented 4.He hates stupidity and incompetence) are still there.
People who are both smart enough and self-confident enough to stand up to Philip find that he is a great person to know and a loyal friend. He is not a great manager, as he has admitted frequently enough, and that's why he brought in professionals managers to run aD. But there has always been logic behind his ideas and decisions, and he is not so arrogant that he won't listen to good, technically informed criticism.
If you look at the substance of the criticisms of him here, they boil down to
1) "Philip insults people"
2) "Philip makes the wrong technical choices and won't listen to reason"
3) "Philip spends too much money"
4) "Philip is an arrogant egomaniac".
1) and 4) apply to any number of successful executives, but re 1) people with thick skins correctly figure out that Philip is not trying to destroy their egos, but is motivated by an extreme desire to get to the point and avoid time-wasting BS. Re 4), while this is true to some degree, many Greenspun-haters exaggerate this tremendously because their jealousy causes them to interpret any exposition whatsoever of his impressive career as in-your-face triumphalism.
Re 2), there doesn't seem to be much substance behind these claims. Philip has changed his mind often enough in response to experience or wise advice that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt re the particular technical disputes at aD. aD's business problems are not technical in nature, they involve marketing and overall direction.
Re 3), Bill Gates throws a lot of money at programmers too, and arsDigita was highly profitable until a year ago so Philip had plenty of money to throw at them. The fiscal hemorrhage since then has a cost component and a revenue component, but his contribution to those has been smaller because he has not been making the big decisions.
The ironic thing is that most VC deals from the past few years were for companies struggling to figure out how to make money. The VCs would go in and try to turn the company into something with a sustainable business and profits. Most of the time they weren't creative enough and failed, losing their investors $millions. In the handful of cases where they succeeded, they built things sort of like ArsDigita with Philip as CEO: $20 million in revenue, happy customers, profit. What is ironic is that the VCs turned ArsDigita from what they were always desperately trying to build themselves (a company with revenue and profits) into the kind of company that has historically lost them all their money (a company with an optimistic spreadsheet and revenue forecasts from not-yet-existing products).
Don't assume that merely because a VC made money in the go-go years of the 1990s that the VC therefore has any special knowledge of business.