Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




dot - the movie

Has anyone here seen "dot", the dot com satire?

I think it came out a couple of years ago, but I'd never heard of it until seeing it on Showtime the other day.  Man is it funny.  If you haven't seen it I highly recommend it.  It shot up past Spinal Tap as my favorite satire of all time.  It's that good.

Yet another anon
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Was it Startup.com?

http://www.all-reviews.com/videos-3/startup-com.htm

I found it interesting. Better than The Apprentice (if you can imagine that!)


Certainly much more real than the Apprentice.

Mr. Analogy
Thursday, June 10, 2004

No it wasn't Startup.  It was simply dot.

Here's a link: http://www.sneakykings.com/dotcom/

It's the funniest movie that I've never heard a buzz about.

Yet another anon
Thursday, June 10, 2004

I haven't seen dot, but I found Startup.com to be somewhat mind-altering. The personalities of the three partners are bizarre in how in conflict they are. It's also worth pointing out that out of two developers and a salesman, the salesman ended up in charge.

Philo

Philo
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Right, it's like Dilbert, if you can't *do* anything, you end up in management.

MilesArcher
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Makes sense to me...developers like to develop, salesmen like to sell, which means they are touching the clients and promising them things, and then coming back to the developers and say "I told them we'd have XYZ by next Wednesday."

Of course, I don't think that's the way it *should* be -- I think salesmen should be on much, much tighter leashes.  But two techies vs one semi-business person?  Of course the business person ends up in charge.

Joe
Thursday, June 10, 2004

When your software is hype, and a hyped-up solution to a hyped-up problem, and you use the occasional company sing-a-long to hype up your employees, you'd better have a salesman at the rudder.

Even better if you find one that had never met a mirror he didn't like.

Edward
Thursday, June 10, 2004

The best part of Startup.com was how the naked greed and hypocrisy of the two principle founders was exposed.  How on the one hand they were talking about being billionaires when they hadn't actually done anything, yet went ape-shit about paying out the programmer that actually *did* do something.  It was interesting to see how they belittled his importance and rationalized their own greed and selfishness.

The fact the programmer walked away with 700k and they walked away with nothing shows that programmers, while socially inept, maybe aren't entirely stupid.


Thursday, June 10, 2004

That programmer who "extorted" the "blood money" in startup.com reminded me of the way that I've been treated when I've been a party to flaky deals and I've repeated the phrase "when and how will *I* ever get paid?" The "business" guys always tend to think that the programmer is supposed to be a charity case who doesn't even deserve to make a living.

I think I've run into dopplegangers of those two jerkoffs in the movie continually on the business side of many small IT companies.

And there's a fine line between standing up for yourself or making a common sense but unpopular personal judgement, and being a backstabber who flouts common decency and morality.  My guess is that the programmer saw exactly how hollow the entire govworks concept was, realized that it would all implode anyway, and decided to take the money and run.

Bored Bystander
Thursday, June 10, 2004

BTW, did you notice how the 3rd partner was portrayed in the movie? Absentee, two phone calls and one sleepy front door meeting. I'll bet that hours of footage of him working his ass off for these guys was left on the cutting room floor.

Because they (or more likely the sole survivor) did the editing.

Philo

Philo
Thursday, June 10, 2004

Philo,

I think startup.com was fictional.

braid_ged
Friday, June 11, 2004

As unreal as it may seem, Startup.com is a documentary of a real life company.  Not a very good one, but true nonetheless.

fred
Friday, June 11, 2004

It's a classic problem when you mix a "marketing guy" with a developer.

What you're really doing is combining one relatively useless guy (the one who can't help create the product) with one useful guy.

The developer then works flat out doing all the work, while the useless guy, with nothing much to do, assumes the other things, being the "management" responsibilities. At this level of just two people, the developer is usually better at those responsibilities, but doesn't have time.

A classic quandarry. The lesson is that a developer should never go halves with someone who can't contribute equally to creating the product.

If they involve additional skills or help, the additional skills or help must be on a staff relationship, not one of equals.

My management course
Friday, June 11, 2004

One thing. The "marketing guy" brought in the funding. The techies had no clue.

Sometimes you need a bullshit artist with no character or ethics to play in the business world. Being a literal minded honest engineering or software developer type in many environments will get you laughed at or disregarded. Getting funding in the dot com era seemed to be about being "PT Barnum".

Unfortunately, character often doesn't always correlate well with objective results such making a buck.

Bored Bystander
Friday, June 11, 2004

"e-Dreams" is very similar and I think is better than Startup.com at capturing the hype of the times.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0262021/plotsummary

Pak
Monday, June 14, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home