If a company didn't have a sustainable business model yet and was losing money, then yeah, it wouldn't make sense to pledge for Long-term support. It's kind of a stamp of "Yup, we've our cashflow under control, happy to keep doing what we're doing".
Alternatively, the pledges can all be used individually, so you could use some of the others without a commitment to long-term support. That's a stamp of "We're not exactly sure how sustainable this idea is yet, but we have ethical standards so we'd prefer to let the company fold than to screw you over (privacy/selling data/quietly raising subscription fees etc) to try and reach profitability".
In both those cases, it would make me feel more confident as a user signing up (especially if they're an app for managing some private/personal part of my life).
Yeah, it makes an exit more difficult. Of course if you make no promises to your users, you can make more money because you're free to sell to the highest bidder, no matter what their intentions. But that's kind of the point of these pledges - as a founder it's saying "I care more about maintaining certain values for my users than making myself rich through the first acquisition offer than comes my way". I'm sure there are founders that think that way, even if they're in the minority - that's really who I'm trying to reach.
EDIT: Also, what I've got in the draft is a clause for each pledge about the correct procedure for retracting the commitment (properly informing users and giving them time to act), so if an acquirer really wanted to go back on the pledges they could - but, rightfully so, they may lose some customers who felt strongly about those values.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
If a company didn't have a sustainable business model yet and was losing money, then yeah, it wouldn't make sense to pledge for Long-term support. It's kind of a stamp of "Yup, we've our cashflow under control, happy to keep doing what we're doing".
Alternatively, the pledges can all be used individually, so you could use some of the others without a commitment to long-term support. That's a stamp of "We're not exactly sure how sustainable this idea is yet, but we have ethical standards so we'd prefer to let the company fold than to screw you over (privacy/selling data/quietly raising subscription fees etc) to try and reach profitability".
In both those cases, it would make me feel more confident as a user signing up (especially if they're an app for managing some private/personal part of my life).
Yeah, it makes an exit more difficult. Of course if you make no promises to your users, you can make more money because you're free to sell to the highest bidder, no matter what their intentions. But that's kind of the point of these pledges - as a founder it's saying "I care more about maintaining certain values for my users than making myself rich through the first acquisition offer than comes my way". I'm sure there are founders that think that way, even if they're in the minority - that's really who I'm trying to reach.
EDIT: Also, what I've got in the draft is a clause for each pledge about the correct procedure for retracting the commitment (properly informing users and giving them time to act), so if an acquirer really wanted to go back on the pledges they could - but, rightfully so, they may lose some customers who felt strongly about those values.
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.
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.
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.