I am happy WhatsApp turned out great for him, what did not go so great is getting away to a country that does not tap phones.
"The experience of living in a country where phone lines were often tapped, instilled the importance of privacy in him, said Jim Goetz, a partner with Sequoia Capital Ltd., WhatsApp’s lone venture capital investor."
I wonder if the NSA tapped WhatsApp at all and if so how he felt about it, I haven't heard anything but it seems like it would have been a great target for them, US company with loads of international users messaging.
That statement was made in reference to features of the app not in reference to what country he moved to. He didn't say "now that I'm in America and have privacy I can make this app* It said basically his experience living in a country with no privacy led him to build his app in a way that respects privacy of it's users. Big difference. You could make the same argument about his current country (the US) although I don't think anyone can seriously compare the two.
Didn't he have a job, for many years, at Yahoo, before starting WhatsApp? Didn't his co-founder also exit Yahoo with what most Americans would consider a crapload of cash? (an amount one would think of when one thinks of winning a lottery)?
I appreciate that he started WhatsApp from scratch but this picture that is being painted of him as some sort of homeless street person is rather warped, don't you think?
As if a former Yahoo technical engineer with a similarly qualified best buddy who has a crapload of cash, both of whom live in Silicon Valley, and have (I assume) plenty of other buddies in the industry, is somehow "starting from scratch from nothing".
The vast, vast majority of Americans should be so lucky to have the "nothing" that they had. Not to mention the rest of the earth's population.
The real truth isn't so much a story of "the poor getting rich" but really, "the rich getting super rich".
> For Koum, 38, the windfall would stand in stark contrast to his years as a teenager, when his family relied on food stamps after emigrating from Ukraine. The experience of living in a country where phone lines were often tapped, instilled the importance of privacy in him, said Jim Goetz, a partner with Sequoia Capital Ltd., WhatsApp’s lone venture capital investor.
He grew up on food stamps. Even if it is only during your formative years, it is most definitely a different perspective than never having to rely on food stamps in your life.
Put another way, $400,000 - over 100x the per capita GDP of Ukraine - is a pretty massive windfall for a guy who grew up in a village outside Kiev. Sure, he chose to stay in the Bay Area and double down on his earnings, but it's not like he didn't have other realistic options that involved never working another day in his life.
According to my fast and very plausibly flawed analysis of Powerball odds, I think the average winning should be about $300, using the gracious assumption that all Powerball jackpots are $600,000,000 (the largest Powerball jackpot ever was $590,000,000).
Word. I was looking at the numbers for MegaMillions - seems like one of the payouts is 1 million dollars - which I think can easily turn into 400k if you took a lump sum. There are also a few payouts that are smaller sums.
This is a sort of silly question, but does one only 'win' the lottery if they get the jackpot?
You can usually win something by matching a subset of the numbers. Matching all 7, for example, is the 'jackpot', but matching, say, 5, might net you $10k. Matching 4 might net $100. Usually matching < half the numbers in a lottery drawing gets you nothing, from what I recall.
We've got a bunch in North Carolina - the 'cash5' game has you pick 5 numbers. If you match any 2, you get $1 - I think that's the ticket price. The winnings for matching 3, 4 or 5 are dependent on how many tickets are sold and how many other matches there are. http://www.nc-educationlottery.org/faq_cash5.aspx That approach may be more common for lotteries - I'm no expert :)
We should just be happy HN has moved beyond Flappy Bird. Now we're back to watching The Social Network movie again, and talking about how pathetic $400K is over $18 lattes.
$400k is performing well at a BigCo for about a decade. I banked $100k in 4 years at MSFT, and I was not frugal. Surviving, let alone excelling in a large software company for 10 years is a demanding, sustained effort. In what way is it like the lottery?
I saved $40k my first year out of college making quite a bit less than fresh grads get at big companies. I was sort of frugal--I ate out a lot and lived in a really nice apartment, but I did share it with a roommate, I didn't have any expensive hobbies besides the occasional video game, and I did own a paid off car and had no other debts of any kind. Anyway, with no income increases and no investment appreciation of any kind (i.e., just putting 100% of the money under your bed, or in a checking account), that would be $400k in 10 years.
Super-importantly, incentive pay increases extra-linearly, at least in the MSFT reward game. So, e.g. in your 7th year you might be getting drastically more in bonus pay than in your 2nd year. Much more than you might expect just from raises. I assume that other large companies have somewhat comparable games, but I don't know first hand.
What kind of sad the world we live in when someone would seriously believe this. There are plenty of Lotteries whose pot sizes are not in the millions that people play. For the vast majority of Americans having that sum would be life changin and the equivalent of winning the lottery. Even if you're making a low six figure salary that sum is more then respectable, considering the likely expenses you have and that after taxes your take home pay will be way less. Seriously, for me to be like, man that's whatever I would have be making closer to a 7 figure salary, and even then I would still be conscious of the general socio-economic issues at hand to know that's still a large sum of money. Many people retire on less, give me a break.
What's even more sad is, from nearly all the child posts, the assumption is made that the guy "won" $400,000. The article states:
"Koum was eating into his $400,000 in savings from Yahoo, and drifting."
Sure it's a lot of money. But the guy didn't win the lottery. He earned it.
According to TFA, he grew up in Ukraine in a house with no hot water, immigrated to the US without his father, stashed 20 notebooks in his suitcase so he would avoid paying for school supplies, was on food stamps and then on disability assistance when his mother was diagnosed with cancer.
What kind of sad world would draw a the conclusion that he wasn't "conscious of the general socio-economic issues at hand to know that's still a large sum of money"?
I may have read these posts incorrectly, but I don't think anyone made the claim that he won this money. There was simply a poster who stated that 400,000 is comparable to an amount of money you would receive if you won a lottery.
I was attacking the flipant attitude towards $400,000 by the OP. When I refer to being ignorant of socio-economic issues I wasn't talking about Koum, I've never seen him make any statement like that for me to judge his attitude by and I thought the context of my comment was clear in that.
But, in terms of Koum, he comes from an immigrant family that was lucky enough to have the ability to move to the US, this alone hints to me while they might have been poor by our standards they must have been doing well enough to make such a big move and afford it, people who do that are usually more well off then the general population they are immigrating from. Clearly he suffered some hardship when he was young and moved through it, that's commendable. But at 18 he got what seems like a pretty good gig at Ernst & Young and post that a good job at Yahoo, enough of a good job to save up almost half million dollars over 9 years, enough to basically take a year off from working and get to travel around a bit ... not too shabby. I'm sure plenty of people wish they had the ability to do this, but probably never will.
I'm not trying to detract from what he earned, and he certainly had a humble background and hardships while young with his mother being sick, but the idea he went from rags to riches really rubs me the wrong way. There are people who live in rags and I have a feeling most of them haven't had the opportunities Koum had. Whether the man himself is humble about it I don't know, I can't say because I never met him and I don't know his views, but I do know that the media portrayal of his background seems over the top. Let's give up this false narrative, humble beginnings isn't the same as being dirt poor and he certainly was quite rich when he started WhatsApp.
yeah the title is misleading. The "food stamps" part was when his family first immigrated from the Ukraine. So it was when he was a child and I don't know how long that lasted. But looks to me that his post-school adult years were just fine in terms of finance. Sure he gained and list millions but in the end was still doing better than most.
> For Koum, 38, the windfall would stand in stark contrast to his years as a teenager, when his family relied on food stamps after emigrating from Ukraine.
The headline (which begins that picture) implies that he went directly from food stamps to a billionaire.
You might argue that the time frame doesn't matter, but then you could make up all sorts of crazy headline with logic like that, such as "Man who could barely feed himself now a billionaire" ..and begin the story when the subject was an infant.
Silly and extreme I know, but clearly timeframe matters. It's still an impressive climb, even if he started with millions (as any amount to several billion is just huge). But I don't think being on food stamps as a kid, is the same as being on food stamps recently or as an adult.
After reading some of the comments here at HN, yes I do. In fact, in the spirit of debate (which is mostly what we all do here at HN) this is a valid point to discuss.
Probably not important in the grand scheme of things, but really it's commentary about catchy/misleading headlines and news stories than it is about the specifics of this story.
"Founder Goes from Rags to Riches" is a better headline than "Upper Middle Class Yahoo! Engineer Makes Billions". Both are correct but in order to gain readers the former is chosen almost every time (for better or worse).
I'm going to do us both a favor and stop checking this thread and get back to making my own success story ;)
Going from foodstamps to a $19B exit is not an example of "the rich getting super rich".
There are phenomenal obstacles to overcome when going from foodstamps to something resembling an upper-middle class life. Even more so when you're an immigrant. That's the real truth.
You're close to rock-bottom with foodstamps. Unless you've experienced poverty - not the "why can't I have $400,000 what makes this prick so special" meme that's pervading the comments on this post, but the kind of poverty that is inescapable, makes you feel hopeless about your circumstance, and constantly forces you to make stark choices about which of the basic necessities you'll have to do without for the month - then there really is no basis to calling Koum's story "warped".
An example of poverty here: http://qr.ae/tgPlq. Tl;dr - this guy went through bucketloads of shit, and still isn't out of the woods yet. Food stamps were of no use. Quote FTA: "... poverty can happen even to people you couldn't imagine it happening to, and when it does, it traps you like an ant lion." It's not the same story as Koum's, but what most people don't realize is how difficult it is to pull yourself out of poverty, especially when faced with mounting debts and health problems.
The fact that he went from virtually nothing to $400,000 in savings to the $19B exit is something that should be applauded, not derided.
I didn't mean to deride him at all. I was deriding the meme that is being promoted in the press that makes it sounds like someone with nothing suddenly created and released an app that suddenly sold for 19B.
His story is absolutely to be applauded. If he was on food stamps as a kid then indeed he "had nothing". For me the great success of his story is that initial bit nobody is talking about, going from a kid on food stamps, to an engineer at Yahoo. That is the amazing story I wish we would be talking about more. That's the story that real, everyday kids could actually have a hope of duplicating. Not the 19B sale to Zuck.
He didn't go from nothing -> 19B. He went from nothing -> Yahoo -> 19B...
The better story to tell is that he went from nothing -> Yahoo
I definitely agree that the story from nothing to Yahoo has a lot more educational value, and that should be the story to tell your kids as it is something actionable and achievable through hard work.
The step from Yahoo to 19B, sadly, is more catchy for the newspapers because it's a "rare event". People don't really want to read about the "boring" stories, they want the dreams. It's human natures though. Which one do you think your kids like better: fairy tales/feel good movies or home works?
He's suggesting that this headline ignores the period after the time when his family was on food stamps. The period where he had the financial means to live a fairly 'comfortable' life.
The movement wasn't food stamps to filthy rich, but food stamps, to upper middle class existence, and then from upper middle class existence to filthy rich.
I would disagree. There's a distinct difference between food stamps->gigantic acquisition and food stamps->comfortable life as software developer at giant corporation->gigantic acquisition. The former glosses over the entire period in-between.
It was the poor fleeing a shithole of a country where they were being oppressed, to America, where they were poor but had a chance, and then going from poor to less poor to well off to supermegarich.
i.e., the American Dream, post-1998 edition. I suspect the jump from "Nazis might kill me" to "poor in America" was roughly the same jump as "poor in America to working in technology" and from "Yahoo! to founding my own company". The founding-my-own-company to sold-to-Facebook was probably the smallest actual jump in subjective quality of life.
> I suspect the jump from "Nazis might kill me" to "poor in America was roughly the same jump as "poor in America to working in technology"
From personal experience, the first was _far greater_. To quote my brother (who became quite successful as well), I'd rather clean streets in US than live in former USSR again.
Being poor in America is by no means pleasant, but the change from being middle-class but 1) from a wrong ethnic group 2) (in my personal case) with a heavily individualistic orientation in former USSR was _far_ worse (one word: "conscription").
It's unfortunate that many people here seem to think that success is something achieved in single step, as if one day he wakes up and cancels his food stamps because he's suddenly a billionaire.
This is a very debilitating attitude, and it prevents people from doing what is necessary to get to the next step. It will take years, and possibly generations, but it will never happen if you are expecting it to be an overnight thing.
Yes! Your quote reminded me of Jaime Escalante, the calculus teacher portrayed in Stand and Deliver. In the movie, he teaches some completely unprepared kids calculus and they pass the AP exam. In real life, he taught for years and set up feeder programs so the students would be ready. More here: http://reason.com/archives/2002/07/01/stand-and-deliver-revi...
>> Escalante's open admission policy, a major reason for his success, also paved the way for his departure. Calculus grew so popular at Garfield that classes grew beyond the 35-student limit set by the union contract. Some had more than 50 students. Escalante would have preferred to keep the classes below the limit had he been able to do so without either denying calculus to willing students or using teachers who were not up to his high standards. Neither was possible, and the teachers union complained about Garfield's class sizes. Rather than compromise, Escalante moved on.
When I say (to non-Californians) that teacher's unions have too much power in California and am accused of being a right-wing wacko, I generally call this example out.
Unions have been responsible for much good (better working conditions, higher pay, etc...) but that doesn't give them a pass to screw students over.
So what size classes should someone have stepped in? 70? 100? Not to mention that having so many in a class was probably a H&S hazard.
It seems more Escalante was the one not prepared to compromise in this instance.
This is exactly the sort of thing unions should step in to solve, so you will have to find another example of why unions are not all good. There are plenty out there.
There's a lot one could learn about problems with various institutions involved in public education from Escalante's story, but this probably isn't a strong example of unions run amok.
It's generally accepted that smaller class sizes help with educational outcomes (as well as teacher morale/quality of life), so it's not only understandable that there would be some agreed-on class size limit, it's arguably professional.
From the accounts I've read, the class size limit was pretty far from the most significant tension involved. Local Garfield administration and politics seem to have been. The principal under which Escalante's program flourished (Henry Gradillas) was a big contributor to the success, but even so, he wasn't invited back after a sabbatical, and it's reasonable to speculate that he'd run afoul of the community which employed him when he'd prioritized academics over athletics. Later principals weren't anywhere near as supportive.
There was also the professional jealousy that came with Escalante's hollywood fame. You can argue that's petty, but I hope anyone who'd do so from the software world is equally circumspect about any kind of professional jealousy when it comes to the success of approaches you don't subscribe to in the software world.
So, yeah. Unions as The Devil is one easy narrative, but it doesn't sit comfortably with the details of the story I'm familiar with.
> The principal under which Escalante's program flourished (Henry Gradillas) was a big contributor to the success, but even so, he wasn't invited back after a sabbatical, and it's reasonable to speculate that he'd run afoul of the community which employed him when he'd prioritized academics over athletics.
That's even more heartbreaking to hear. Everyone's opinion seemed to have matter, except that of the students, whose careers and educations were at stake.
I totally agree with you. The reality is most people have their own notion of being poor. It is all relative and in many cases, their notion of being poor is highly exaggerated. I grew up in third world and I know what being poor is.
> I appreciate that he started WhatsApp from scratch but this picture that is being painted of him as some sort of homeless street person is rather warped, don't you think?
I get annoyed by this "rags-to-riches" narrative the press in America seems to like to push. It's never as simple as the articles make it seem and there's always something left out.
Read between the lines - what they were really saying is that blacks and Hispanics on food stamps are worthless parasites. It's nothing more than codified racism.
How long do you think it will take for him to start lobbying against taxes on the rich and social programs? It'd be nice if he maintained some perspective, but that doesn't seem to happen with SV millionaires/billionaires...
Going from being a kid whose parents received food stamps to a billionaire is an amazing example of social mobility that is definitely not the norm. The fact that he wasn't poor for his adult life is just one detail of the greater story.
What silicon valley millionaire is advocating against taxing the rich? The only one I know of that has an opinion is Gates, and it's exactly the opposite of what you're implying.
Quote: "My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."
Buffett, Gates and many other super-rich people have decided to give most of their fortunes to charity, not to their children.
Wouldn't putting your fortune into a charitable trust (like the Gates foundation - iirc a 501(c)3 tax exempt organization) basically count as a way to evade paying full tax on it (estate taxes, etc)? Not that I'm saying giving your money to charity is bad, but it seems like a way to reduce your tax burden while still being able to direct the money towards things you were interested in doing anyway.
Only if you're using that foundation as a way to funnel the money to your heirs. The Gates Foundation is spending a lot of that money right now, while Bill is still alive.
Yeah, sorry - I wasn't implying anything bad about Gates, I think he's doing great stuff - it's just unclear to me whether it's possible for someone to use a foundation like that as a tax dodge. I don't know if he represents the average or if he's actually a positive outlier.
> it's just unclear to me whether it's possible for someone to use a foundation like that as a tax dodge.
Only if burning money in your yard counts as a tax dodge. Setting up a foundation doesn't allow the money to be redirected to the donor in any way, and the donor doesn't even get to specify how the money is spent, except in a broad philosophical sense (i.e. "The goal of my foundation is to help education", things like that).
> I don't know if he represents the average or if he's actually a positive outlier.
Even among well-known philanthropists, Gates is an outlier. His willingness to tackle polio, and his project to redesign condoms to make them more effective, are both wise and daring projects.
Unlike smallpox, polio only exhibits symptoms in a small minority of those infected, so it is very difficult to identify, control and eradicate. It's going to be much harder to eradicate polio than it was to eliminate smallpox, the first dramatic pathogen extinction that was based on simple human effort.
> Wouldn't putting your fortune into a charitable trust (like the Gates foundation - iirc a 501(c)3 tax exempt organization) basically count as a way to evade paying full tax on it (estate taxes, etc)?
This may appear to be true at first glance, but compare using capital to set up a foundation versus using the same capital to grow one's fortune in equities and other investments. The latter choice is better overall when a combination of growth and tax issues are taken into account.
This means that people who set up foundations do it because they want to change the world, not because they want to avoid taxes.
The Republican party is far from broke, so I'd say "many". Example: the Koch brothers. They're not very much upvoted on Reddit or HN though, and generally don't use social networks a lot, so we don't hear about them as much. They don't need popularity anyway: they have money.
Bill Gates is one of the few who really seems to want to give back, so we read about him a lot. It's a better news story than "Shocking! Another Rich Guy Turns Out to be Greedy" or "Wealthy Person Still Not Giving a Lot of Money".
We have Tom Perkins complaining that the desire to have the rich contribute fairly is a 'Progressive Kristallnacht', tech nutjob Tim Draper advocating a scheme to basically wall off Silicon Valley from the poors in the rest of the state, and various SF tech firms monopolizing public resources (like bus stops, for example) without paying anything resembling a fair market rate.
Less directly, we have people like Peter Shih and Greg Gopman spouting antisocial rants about how their lives are inconvenienced by the poor and disadvantaged, and how the world would be a better place without all these poor people (rephrased, obviously).
There are certainly level-headed silicon valley millionaires out there who just want to buy a quiet house somewhere and live a happy family life. As long as they pay their taxes and don't lobby to make the planet worse, I have no problem with those people.
The issue is that you can easily come up with as many bad examples as good ones, when it comes to these 'new money' types.
The money in SV obviously does not go directly to the most deserving; some people just get lucky, other people get their money through deceit and outright theft, and other people have the vast majority of their money siphoned off by outside forces like patent trolls. It would be unusual if all these millionaires WERE good people.
Sooo we probably shouldn't lump them together, and should instead call them out specifically (as you did in your reply). I'm not even going to touch the "new money" comment...
'New money' is not a slur (at least in this case), I'm using it to indicate that these are people who came into money recently and have typically not progressed to the point where they are using it responsibly and thinking long-term.
Anecdotally I would think "old money" would be more against taxation than new money folks. If you were born into money, and never lived poorly I would assume that you'd have a hard time empathizing with the plight of the less fortunate. Also, holding onto your mountain of cash that someone handed to you is different than someone with an earned high income. It would seem to me that old money people would be more active in reducing taxes on investments (which they've arguably succeeded in doing) and new money folks would be more concerned with income taxing.
Speaking of different universes, most immigrant families from Ukraine/Belarus/Russia that I know, are working their asses off and are too proud to be on food stamps or any other form of gov't assistance. They view the US as the land of opportunity, and that doesn't mean food stamps.
Good for them, but being "too proud" doesn't work when your family is starving. In fact if I knew of a family "too proud" to use food stamps who's children were being harmed as a result, I'd report them and I'd hope you would too as they (the children) deserve better.
I still hold out hope that someday, someone will go from rags to riches and opt out of being what everyone expects him or her to be. A billion dollars could change the world, if applied toward the solving the problems in externalities and the commons that capitalism currently ignores. Reminds me of a book that's still in my queue:
the irony of moving from wiretapping ukraine to corporate wiretapping by facebook (and possibly NSA) is palpable though. pretty sure facebook just bought whatsapp to get the giant phonebook directory...
I was homeless and on foodstamps about 5 years ago. Within three years I had a bootstrapped business with 15 people and sold my stake. Life can certainly change quickly!
I'm happy for the team at WhatsApp. All other things being equal, having money is much nicer than not having it.
I tried WhatsApp, then stopped using it when it became painfully apparent that unless all my contacts use WhatsApp, it will never be a good experience for me. I don't want fragmented messaging on my phone.
Not only that, but SMS is very cheap. In Australia at least, most mobile plans come with unlimited, or more than enough SMS messages included in the plan to satisfy most people. I send a lot of text messages and it never makes any dent on my monthly bill.
What I'm getting at is, I'm puzzled why the app is worth 19 billion.
113 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 176 ms ] thread"The experience of living in a country where phone lines were often tapped, instilled the importance of privacy in him, said Jim Goetz, a partner with Sequoia Capital Ltd., WhatsApp’s lone venture capital investor."
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/02/crypto-weaknesses-in...
Unfortunately, these jokes were usually presented the other way around - with Soviet Union as the butt of jokes. Times change...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reversal
I appreciate that he started WhatsApp from scratch but this picture that is being painted of him as some sort of homeless street person is rather warped, don't you think?
As if a former Yahoo technical engineer with a similarly qualified best buddy who has a crapload of cash, both of whom live in Silicon Valley, and have (I assume) plenty of other buddies in the industry, is somehow "starting from scratch from nothing".
The vast, vast majority of Americans should be so lucky to have the "nothing" that they had. Not to mention the rest of the earth's population.
The real truth isn't so much a story of "the poor getting rich" but really, "the rich getting super rich".
He grew up on food stamps. Even if it is only during your formative years, it is most definitely a different perspective than never having to rely on food stamps in your life.
Kind of hard to see how he values privacy without proper security.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2014/02/19/exclusive-...
I guarantee you that for the vast, vast majority of San Franciscans, suddenly having $400,000 would be a truly life-changing event.
1. The sort of universe where winning the lottery actually means winning multiple millions of dollars.
2. The sort of universe where having $400,000 is something to be proud of having earned.
http://www.powerball.com/powerball/pb_prizes.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerball#2009_changes_include_...
This is a sort of silly question, but does one only 'win' the lottery if they get the jackpot?
We've got a bunch in North Carolina - the 'cash5' game has you pick 5 numbers. If you match any 2, you get $1 - I think that's the ticket price. The winnings for matching 3, 4 or 5 are dependent on how many tickets are sold and how many other matches there are. http://www.nc-educationlottery.org/faq_cash5.aspx That approach may be more common for lotteries - I'm no expert :)
Silicon Valley. Remember the guy talked about at the beginning of "The Social Network" who commits suicide because he exited with "only" 3 million?
"Koum was eating into his $400,000 in savings from Yahoo, and drifting."
Sure it's a lot of money. But the guy didn't win the lottery. He earned it.
According to TFA, he grew up in Ukraine in a house with no hot water, immigrated to the US without his father, stashed 20 notebooks in his suitcase so he would avoid paying for school supplies, was on food stamps and then on disability assistance when his mother was diagnosed with cancer.
What kind of sad world would draw a the conclusion that he wasn't "conscious of the general socio-economic issues at hand to know that's still a large sum of money"?
But, in terms of Koum, he comes from an immigrant family that was lucky enough to have the ability to move to the US, this alone hints to me while they might have been poor by our standards they must have been doing well enough to make such a big move and afford it, people who do that are usually more well off then the general population they are immigrating from. Clearly he suffered some hardship when he was young and moved through it, that's commendable. But at 18 he got what seems like a pretty good gig at Ernst & Young and post that a good job at Yahoo, enough of a good job to save up almost half million dollars over 9 years, enough to basically take a year off from working and get to travel around a bit ... not too shabby. I'm sure plenty of people wish they had the ability to do this, but probably never will.
I'm not trying to detract from what he earned, and he certainly had a humble background and hardships while young with his mother being sick, but the idea he went from rags to riches really rubs me the wrong way. There are people who live in rags and I have a feeling most of them haven't had the opportunities Koum had. Whether the man himself is humble about it I don't know, I can't say because I never met him and I don't know his views, but I do know that the media portrayal of his background seems over the top. Let's give up this false narrative, humble beginnings isn't the same as being dirt poor and he certainly was quite rich when he started WhatsApp.
This sounds like poor->rich to me.
I don't think there is a single person painting the picture you describe.
You might argue that the time frame doesn't matter, but then you could make up all sorts of crazy headline with logic like that, such as "Man who could barely feed himself now a billionaire" ..and begin the story when the subject was an infant.
Silly and extreme I know, but clearly timeframe matters. It's still an impressive climb, even if he started with millions (as any amount to several billion is just huge). But I don't think being on food stamps as a kid, is the same as being on food stamps recently or as an adult.
Probably not important in the grand scheme of things, but really it's commentary about catchy/misleading headlines and news stories than it is about the specifics of this story.
"Founder Goes from Rags to Riches" is a better headline than "Upper Middle Class Yahoo! Engineer Makes Billions". Both are correct but in order to gain readers the former is chosen almost every time (for better or worse).
I'm going to do us both a favor and stop checking this thread and get back to making my own success story ;)
There are phenomenal obstacles to overcome when going from foodstamps to something resembling an upper-middle class life. Even more so when you're an immigrant. That's the real truth.
You're close to rock-bottom with foodstamps. Unless you've experienced poverty - not the "why can't I have $400,000 what makes this prick so special" meme that's pervading the comments on this post, but the kind of poverty that is inescapable, makes you feel hopeless about your circumstance, and constantly forces you to make stark choices about which of the basic necessities you'll have to do without for the month - then there really is no basis to calling Koum's story "warped".
An example of poverty here: http://qr.ae/tgPlq. Tl;dr - this guy went through bucketloads of shit, and still isn't out of the woods yet. Food stamps were of no use. Quote FTA: "... poverty can happen even to people you couldn't imagine it happening to, and when it does, it traps you like an ant lion." It's not the same story as Koum's, but what most people don't realize is how difficult it is to pull yourself out of poverty, especially when faced with mounting debts and health problems.
The fact that he went from virtually nothing to $400,000 in savings to the $19B exit is something that should be applauded, not derided.
I didn't mean to deride him at all. I was deriding the meme that is being promoted in the press that makes it sounds like someone with nothing suddenly created and released an app that suddenly sold for 19B.
His story is absolutely to be applauded. If he was on food stamps as a kid then indeed he "had nothing". For me the great success of his story is that initial bit nobody is talking about, going from a kid on food stamps, to an engineer at Yahoo. That is the amazing story I wish we would be talking about more. That's the story that real, everyday kids could actually have a hope of duplicating. Not the 19B sale to Zuck.
He didn't go from nothing -> 19B. He went from nothing -> Yahoo -> 19B...
The better story to tell is that he went from nothing -> Yahoo
The step from Yahoo to 19B, sadly, is more catchy for the newspapers because it's a "rare event". People don't really want to read about the "boring" stories, they want the dreams. It's human natures though. Which one do you think your kids like better: fairy tales/feel good movies or home works?
The movement wasn't food stamps to filthy rich, but food stamps, to upper middle class existence, and then from upper middle class existence to filthy rich.
i.e., the American Dream, post-1998 edition. I suspect the jump from "Nazis might kill me" to "poor in America" was roughly the same jump as "poor in America to working in technology" and from "Yahoo! to founding my own company". The founding-my-own-company to sold-to-Facebook was probably the smallest actual jump in subjective quality of life.
From personal experience, the first was _far greater_. To quote my brother (who became quite successful as well), I'd rather clean streets in US than live in former USSR again.
Being poor in America is by no means pleasant, but the change from being middle-class but 1) from a wrong ethnic group 2) (in my personal case) with a heavily individualistic orientation in former USSR was _far_ worse (one word: "conscription").
This is a very debilitating attitude, and it prevents people from doing what is necessary to get to the next step. It will take years, and possibly generations, but it will never happen if you are expecting it to be an overnight thing.
When I say (to non-Californians) that teacher's unions have too much power in California and am accused of being a right-wing wacko, I generally call this example out.
Unions have been responsible for much good (better working conditions, higher pay, etc...) but that doesn't give them a pass to screw students over.
It seems more Escalante was the one not prepared to compromise in this instance.
This is exactly the sort of thing unions should step in to solve, so you will have to find another example of why unions are not all good. There are plenty out there.
It's generally accepted that smaller class sizes help with educational outcomes (as well as teacher morale/quality of life), so it's not only understandable that there would be some agreed-on class size limit, it's arguably professional.
From the accounts I've read, the class size limit was pretty far from the most significant tension involved. Local Garfield administration and politics seem to have been. The principal under which Escalante's program flourished (Henry Gradillas) was a big contributor to the success, but even so, he wasn't invited back after a sabbatical, and it's reasonable to speculate that he'd run afoul of the community which employed him when he'd prioritized academics over athletics. Later principals weren't anywhere near as supportive.
There was also the professional jealousy that came with Escalante's hollywood fame. You can argue that's petty, but I hope anyone who'd do so from the software world is equally circumspect about any kind of professional jealousy when it comes to the success of approaches you don't subscribe to in the software world.
So, yeah. Unions as The Devil is one easy narrative, but it doesn't sit comfortably with the details of the story I'm familiar with.
That's even more heartbreaking to hear. Everyone's opinion seemed to have matter, except that of the students, whose careers and educations were at stake.
I get annoyed by this "rags-to-riches" narrative the press in America seems to like to push. It's never as simple as the articles make it seem and there's always something left out.
The article missed a trick, should have said:
"Whatsapp founder goes from being penniless and naked (just being born) to a billionaire."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-...
Quote: "My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."
Buffett, Gates and many other super-rich people have decided to give most of their fortunes to charity, not to their children.
Only if burning money in your yard counts as a tax dodge. Setting up a foundation doesn't allow the money to be redirected to the donor in any way, and the donor doesn't even get to specify how the money is spent, except in a broad philosophical sense (i.e. "The goal of my foundation is to help education", things like that).
> I don't know if he represents the average or if he's actually a positive outlier.
Even among well-known philanthropists, Gates is an outlier. His willingness to tackle polio, and his project to redesign condoms to make them more effective, are both wise and daring projects.
Unlike smallpox, polio only exhibits symptoms in a small minority of those infected, so it is very difficult to identify, control and eradicate. It's going to be much harder to eradicate polio than it was to eliminate smallpox, the first dramatic pathogen extinction that was based on simple human effort.
This may appear to be true at first glance, but compare using capital to set up a foundation versus using the same capital to grow one's fortune in equities and other investments. The latter choice is better overall when a combination of growth and tax issues are taken into account.
This means that people who set up foundations do it because they want to change the world, not because they want to avoid taxes.
Bill Gates is one of the few who really seems to want to give back, so we read about him a lot. It's a better news story than "Shocking! Another Rich Guy Turns Out to be Greedy" or "Wealthy Person Still Not Giving a Lot of Money".
We have Tom Perkins complaining that the desire to have the rich contribute fairly is a 'Progressive Kristallnacht', tech nutjob Tim Draper advocating a scheme to basically wall off Silicon Valley from the poors in the rest of the state, and various SF tech firms monopolizing public resources (like bus stops, for example) without paying anything resembling a fair market rate.
Less directly, we have people like Peter Shih and Greg Gopman spouting antisocial rants about how their lives are inconvenienced by the poor and disadvantaged, and how the world would be a better place without all these poor people (rephrased, obviously).
There are certainly level-headed silicon valley millionaires out there who just want to buy a quiet house somewhere and live a happy family life. As long as they pay their taxes and don't lobby to make the planet worse, I have no problem with those people.
The issue is that you can easily come up with as many bad examples as good ones, when it comes to these 'new money' types.
The money in SV obviously does not go directly to the most deserving; some people just get lucky, other people get their money through deceit and outright theft, and other people have the vast majority of their money siphoned off by outside forces like patent trolls. It would be unusual if all these millionaires WERE good people.
God says... downwards commission Ambition tempts reputation seven him teachings drunkenness dotards heavenly names glorify aside lighteth magistrates Christ appears hallow distributed recovery Wondrous relied royalties whisperings loves Libanus midnight INDIRECT as severing gallantry starry springs slave let's created 333 astrologer lighten intrude those showed townsman sweetly load abstinence withstood shaken butler evidence project place deeps eloquence discontent conjectures potter's lust Plain kingdom intoxicated obedient ventures breast intend Within nights tumultuously
He obviously worked hard, built something valuable and useful by a lot of people but let's focus on the reality, not a myth
http://www.amazon.com/Only-Super-Rich-Can-Save-Us/dp/B003JTH...
the irony of moving from wiretapping ukraine to corporate wiretapping by facebook (and possibly NSA) is palpable though. pretty sure facebook just bought whatsapp to get the giant phonebook directory...
Even a broken clock is right sometimes.
Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
John Steinbeck
Seems like some of them could be billionaires, too.
I'm happy for the team at WhatsApp. All other things being equal, having money is much nicer than not having it.
Other people read the story and are inspired by the title and so they feel a connection with it.
Other people want to troll! :)
Not only that, but SMS is very cheap. In Australia at least, most mobile plans come with unlimited, or more than enough SMS messages included in the plan to satisfy most people. I send a lot of text messages and it never makes any dent on my monthly bill.
What I'm getting at is, I'm puzzled why the app is worth 19 billion.