Sure, out of context. And that doesn't mean it wouldn't be awesome :) You throw out a lot of insults and blanket statements without a lot of backing. Also, you're insinuating that it's selfish (and perhaps wrong?) to sell a company, which is just ridiculous.
It's funny you're nitpicking a quote when the original article is pretentious and what were your words "short sighted and immature" enough to call their own company a revolution.
Regardless I don't see how your quote is "out of context"; I don't see anything in your original post that would indicate the sale benefits anyone other than the owners/executives of the company.
Your reply reflects precisely the attitude that the author of the article is calling out; that many founders set out to create a company for the sole purpose of selling out. The reason this is harmful is that in most cases the sale is to a company who is uninterested in the new, innovative ideas that the original founders incorporated in the product (the same qualities which drew in early adopters and other customers).
This has a negative effect on the overall progress of the industry involved as it prevents "big changes" (I'll try to avoid loaded terms) from happening and allows stagnation to continue.
Perhaps, but calling yourself a revolution is kind of like calling yourself insane or weird or unique or a celebrity; it's just disingenuous. If you have to call yourself something...
It's out of context because I wasn't saying to be "selfish" and do nothing. I was saying they could work on whatever they wanted regardless of whether or not it's monetizable. There's no way to know that without context.
>Many founders set out to create a company for the sole purpose of selling out (which in the author's context included Aaron).
You don't know that. Aaron could have set off to build a long-term profitable company, which they appeared [1] on their way to doing. But 170 million dollars is 170 million dollars. Almost everyone has their number especially if they have shareholders and vested employees (which 37s does). Their responsibility isn't just to their customers, but to their shareholders, employees, vendors and other people in their life. Who's to say their customers will be treated worse because of the acquisition (granted, Intuit has a poor track record, but this thread has enough assuming in it already).
You run in to the same problem as the OP does: a lot of assumptions without any real knowledge of Aaron or the company's dealings. Instead you're relying on blind assertions and tunnel vision to judge others.
[1] Based on lead gen affiliate fees and the amount of users they had. Unfortunately I don't know this for sure.
You're right about that fact that neither I nor the author of the article know everything (perhaps anything?) about the genuine motivation or inner-workings of Mint's owners and operators.
In my case I was referring to startups/founders in general which I thought I made clear by the terms I chose in my response, however if this was ambiguous to you I apologize.
Well in that case apology accepted. And to your second remark I agree with you - I'm genuinely against built to flip companies. I just don't think Mint was one of them.
It's funny you're nitpicking a quote when the original article is pretentious and what were your words "short sighted and immature" enough to call their own company a revolution.