QDOS produced by Seattle Computer and purchased by Microsoft after Digital Research dragged their heels on their promises to deliever CP/M to IBM, was a rip-off of CP/M. We can argue about this point but it's documented by Gates' biographers.
Gates was hungry for that deal and beat Kildall to the punch, doing what he needed to, bending the rules/law to get his foot in the door at IBM.
The essay by pg about "doing good" mentioned by someone in this thread might ring true when the valves are open and VC funding is flowing freely but in the new financial reality that we are in, I am arguing that it is the companies that have this kind of ruthlessness that will be the ones who make it, not the ones who want to "do good". Microsoft is not an outlier in this practice. It is self-evident that this is the American way of business.
And so you think YC startups are failing to negotiate well with IBM? I'm curious beyond some vague idea of ruthlessness, that really just seems like a fairly typical licensing deal magnified in importance by history, if there are any specific examples of a YC company not being ruthless.
I still go back to my original comment, which is that when you boil this whole question down, it makes no sense at all.
I mentioned QDOS and the IBM negotiations only because I was disputing your statement about Microsoft not being assertive early on. I think this is clearly not the case. The aggressiveness of their negotiating tactics and their willingness to potentially get sued for copyright infringement relate to the context of my question about whether YC startups lack grit.
You are asking me for "specific examples of a YC startup not being ruthless". But I am asking for the inverse - examples of aggressiveness. I haven't seen any at YC. Have you? Perhaps you don't believe it's necessary or important but that was the premise of my original question. I insist that this is not a troll but a sincere question and an important one in the current economic environment, even more especially for companies not privileged by YC funding.
Most negotiation goes on behind closed doors, so you wouldn't see it (and I doubt Matt would be at liberty to discuss specific instances).
The YC founders I've met in person have been plenty assertive, and when it comes to business, some are pretty downright ruthless. They are nice guys outside of business (which is probably why you don't see them as ruthless or assertive), but they have just as much killer instinct as any other entrepreneur I've met, and more than some. PG seems to select for that - perhaps that's why I was rejected 4 times. ;-)
When I saw the title, my first thought was "Umm, wow. People really think that?"
How would you define ruthlessness I guess? I mean, I can name a lot of YC startups that are crushing their competitors by relentlessly making better products. From my batch alone there is Disqus (whose product is significantly better and gained much more traction than their closest competitor, Intense Debate) and Dropbox. They've both taken a lead over a field of entrants in terms of innovation.
I mean, they haven't thrown any bricks through their competitors' windshields, but they haven't passed up any chances to make their competitors look half-baked.
Gates was hungry for that deal and beat Kildall to the punch, doing what he needed to, bending the rules/law to get his foot in the door at IBM.
The essay by pg about "doing good" mentioned by someone in this thread might ring true when the valves are open and VC funding is flowing freely but in the new financial reality that we are in, I am arguing that it is the companies that have this kind of ruthlessness that will be the ones who make it, not the ones who want to "do good". Microsoft is not an outlier in this practice. It is self-evident that this is the American way of business.
http://books.google.com/books?id=iPWjNoSS9vUC&pg=PA120&#...