Swing and a miss! Histories biggest business strike outs.

Dusty Rhodes said:
This is my favourite

Click to expand...
What the sweat fuck did I just watch?

This guy may be one of the saddest examples of getting married to an idea and not giving up no matter how bad but unlike the others he did not have a chance at a Billion or Million dollar idea and just made the wrong choices. His invention would be lucky to make a few hundred dollars from family.

What is the name of that show he was pitching on? Looks like Shark Tank, light.
 
MikeMcMann said:
What the sweat fuck did I just watch?

This guy may be one of the saddest examples of getting married to an idea and not giving up no matter how bad but unlike the others he did not have a chance at a Billion or Million dollar idea and just made the wrong choices. His invention would be lucky to make a few hundred dollars from family.

What is the name of that show he was pitching on? Looks like Shark Tank, light.
Click to expand...

I have no idea but it is hilarious and sad
 
Dusty Rhodes said:
I have no idea but it is hilarious and sad
Click to expand...
That is so sad. That guy is either going to kill himself or go postal when that idea dies if he has not already. You can just see he has so much vested in it that he has become completely irrational.
 
MikeMcMann said:
That is so sad. That guy is either going to kill himself or go postal when that idea dies if he has not already. You can just see he has so much vested in it that he has become completely irrational.
Click to expand...

I think that vid is many years old, I'm sure he's fine

<Fedor23>
 
The maker of Gatorade went on to invest in a similar formula for a beer that would replenish your nutrients, called GatorBeer.
No joke. It sold poorly
 
Hey, shouldn't the title be History's biggest strike outs"? I think it should.
 
Here is some perspective.

That guy's 10% share at Apple would have been diluted down over the years. Look what happened with the first Facebook founders. And that company was a flash in the pan.

Hell, with Apple even Jobs was forced to leave. During the natural progression of the company he would have been kicked to the curb for next to nothing just due to pressure from New investors/CEO's

If I had to guess he'd maybe be worth 20 million today.

Regarding Netflix and Blockbusters. There is a reason Blockbuster is out of business. No vision. Even if they purchased Netflix there is no guarantee it would have thrived. The founders would have signed a non compete for a few years and then competed with them under a new company with the same concept.

In today's day and age visionaries are prospering and everyone else (even if they are rich) are watching them fly by.
 
Last edited:
DataBreach said:
Here is some perspective.

That guy's 10% share at Apple would have been diluted down over the years. Look what happened with the first Facebook founders. And that company was a flash in the pan.

Hell, with Apple even Jobs was forced to leave. During the natural progression of the company he would have been kicked to the curb for next to nothing just due to pressure from New investors/CEO's

If I had to guess he'd maybe be worth 20 million today.

Regarding Netflix and Blockbusters. There is a reason Blockbuster is out of business. No vision. Even if they purchased Netflix there is no guarantee it would have thrived. The founders would have signed a non compete for a few years and then competed with them under company with the same concept.

In today's day and age visionaries are prospering and everyone else (even if they are rich) are watching them fly by.
Click to expand...
Your perspective is not relevant.

Do some founders try to screw other founders like Zuckerberg tried to do with Saverin, sure. But Saverin sued and still got paid. All of the Apple founding/early group aside from this guy got paid (Jobs, Woz and Kawasaki). Bill Gates partner Paul Allen got paid despite being mostly invisible and sidelined.

So your assumption that had he held his shares they would be worth 20 million is garbage as they are calculating the dilution and unless he was Sacerin'd by Jobs and took all the dilution he would be fine.
 
MikeMcMann said:
Your perspective is not relevant.

Do some founders try to screw other founders like Zuckerberg tried to do with Saverin, sure. But Saverin sued and still got paid. All of the Apple founding/early group aside from this guy got paid (Jobs, Woz and Kawasaki). Bill Gates partner Paul Allen got paid despite being mostly invisible and sidelined.

So your assumption that had he held his shares they would be worth 20 million is garbage as they are calculating the dilution and unless he was Sacerin'd by Jobs and took all the dilution he would be fine.
Click to expand...
Just your opinion of course. You're ignoring the fact Facebook was a flash in the pan, completely different from Apple that had MANY ebb and flows with even Jobs leaving.

I seem to recall from watching documentaries that this guy's 10% got shuffled around quite a bit.

If Apple had a 3-5 year history going from nothing to billions then your comment would have more weight.

Apple started in the 1970's and only became hugely successful in the last 15 years. Had Jobs not come back there is a real possibility Apple would have gone to zero.

Diluting shares is a common business practice especially within tech companies that have massive ebb and flows. You want a brand new thriving CEO? Dilution. You want that new VC team that just grew that new tech company to 3 billion? Dilution. You want to go on Shark Tank and be on TV with free advertising? Dilution.

In fact, I can't think of a better example for a percentage getting diluted than Apple.
 
Last edited:
My grandfather's cousin was Shaky Johnson, founder of Shaky's pizza. He had asked my grandfather to go into business with him. My grandfather's mom wouldn't allow it because they served beer. She didn't want him working at a place that served alcohol. He missed out on a lot of money.
 
It can't be considered a complete failure, but if RIM (BlackBerry) founder Mike Lazaridis could run it back, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't go with Jim Balsillie as co-CEO.
 
Dusty Rhodes said:
I have no idea but it is hilarious and sad
Click to expand...



giphy.gif
 
MikeMcMann said:
Your perspective is not relevant.

Do some founders try to screw other founders like Zuckerberg tried to do with Saverin, sure. But Saverin sued and still got paid. All of the Apple founding/early group aside from this guy got paid (Jobs, Woz and Kawasaki). Bill Gates partner Paul Allen got paid despite being mostly invisible and sidelined.

So your assumption that had he held his shares they would be worth 20 million is garbage as they are calculating the dilution and unless he was Sacerin'd by Jobs and took all the dilution he would be fine.
Click to expand...
I was going to ignore your Saverin comment but I just can't. To act like Saverin didn't get diluted is delusional. Of course, they settled out of court and they signed a non-disclosure so we can't by default know the exact numbers. But everything I have read and seen makes it pretty clear they were joint owners. So if Zuckerberg owned 24% then Saverin owned 24%.

Saverin ended up with 5% lol.
Mark Zuckerberg got 24%

Dude's share got diluted five times over.

Seriously, check out this link:

https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-Facebook-do-Saverin-and-Zuckerberg-still-own

For business advantage and distribution everyone accepts diluting as a standard business practice. Look at the pie chart that owns Facebook now. Look like the founding fathers to you? Like a bunch of Harvard undergrads?

Sean Parker, who was primarily responsible for the diluting, is worth about the same as Saverin.

Yeah, Saverin made out like a bandit, oh wait?
 
Last edited:
The main reason that 10% Apple owner would get diluted was he was a silent partner. The guy brought nothing to the company when it came to growth and expansion.

New people coming in just wouldn't do the work knowing a silent partner was getting hand over fist money doing nothing. That's when the lawyers get involved and that's when this guy would get his serious haircut. Just like Saverin did, lol.
 
DataBreach said:
Just your opinion of course. You're ignoring the fact Facebook was a flash in the pan, completely different from Apple that had MANY ebb and flows with even Jobs leaving.

I seem to recall from watching documentaries that this guy's 10% got shuffled around quite a bit.

If Apple had a 3-5 year history going from nothing to billions then your comment would have more weight.

Apple started in the 1970's and only became hugely successful in the last 15 years. Had Jobs not come back there is a real possibility Apple would have gone to zero.

Diluting shares is a common business practice especially within tech companies that have massive ebb and flows. You want a brand new thriving CEO? Dilution. You want that new VC team that just grew that new tech company to 3 billion? Dilution. You want to go on Shark Tank and be on TV with free advertising? Dilution.

In fact, I can't think of a better example for a percentage getting diluted than Apple.
Click to expand...
No not my opinion. HIstorical fact.

Most of the founders of the biggest companies end up stinking rich despite multiple rounds of dilution in getting to that multi billion valuation. You would only be able to find a very few exceptions where the guys sold out and not because they were diluted to nothing.

But yes if companies are failing in between and have to be recapitalized or remade then the prior equity holders may be wiped out. That should be expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,098
Messages
55,467,414
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top