I don't think I had a backup plan at the time. I suppose I would have gone back to consulting and writing books. Maybe after a while I would have tried to start another company. That would have been hard, though, because if Viaweb hadn't worked out it would have been hard to talk Robert Morris into trying again.
I was pretty excited about Web apps, which were a new thing then. (We planned eventually to make a whole suite of them; Viaweb Store was just the first.) So I probably would have worked on those in some way. Maybe I would have written some sort of general platform for building them, and/or written a book about that topic.
Assuming the market hadn't changed, and you still had a big market for something like Viaweb, would you still use the same technology stack? Would you still use CLisp, or Clozure/SBCL/ABCL?
Doubtfully a popular opinion, but I'll throw it out there anyway. In finance it's common to assume the winners (aka. those that float to the top of hedge funds, investment banks, etc) are worth observing as a result of their apparent success, however it's considered prudent to ignore the winners and instead observe what the losers have done, as few intelligent people in that sector believe a consistent winner is little more than someone who has had a good run of luck.
Following from that, if pg wasn't a "winner" there is very little to differentiate him from what 1,000,000 others have tried and failed. Circumstance and context are a frighteningly arbitrary decider, and therefore I don't think this question is particularly meaningful.
[edit: this is not to suggest that dumb luck alone is enough to create a success, it's just that intelligence and tact alone are often not enough to create success either]
Regardless of the applicability to pg, I think this is a smart conversation. When evaluating hypotheses, we have a cognitive bias in favor of past success, when past failure might be the more informative signal. Planet Money did an interesting podcast with the author of this book:
The reason it is considered prudent (by some) in finance to not invest in the latest success story is that you want to buy low and sell high. Once a fund is a success, it is hard to do that.
How would you envision Viaweb not working out? Would it be a technical problem where Graham et al weren't able to produce viaweb, a business problem where they weren't able to sell or make money off of it, or a market problem where there simply wasn't anyone interested in online stores, or do you simply mean if Viaweb was something else that would fail?
To me it feels like any of those problems would require the world to be quite different from how it is.
Are you suggesting that the success of Viaweb was inevitable?
There are a million possible failure cases for any startup, including a large number that are for all practical purposes out of your control - a car accident could disable a key participant, a better competitor could suddenly pounce on the scene, fraudsters could decide to make you a target, etc. With all due respect to PG, you don't have to change the world much to see Viaweb fail. Even with hindsight.
Having read pg's book (ANSI Common Lisp) and all of his articles; I liked this question and the answers pg has given.
I agree with forgotusername's opinion about the luck plays a good part in life, but as long as the Viaweb's concerned, the luck had its minimal share because I still remember in one of pg's articles he was talking about how frequently they have written their code base in order to serve a user experience better than the competition. That's hardly got anything to do with luck.
And if you've ever read all his articles, you might have spotted sections talking about when and how the luck has been playing really impressive role; and there you got it: In the case of Bill Gate's Microsoft. How it suddenly became a multi billion dollar company almost overnight is plain luck.
Also when you consider for how much Viaweb was sold, which was about $50M, and compare it to other sales most of them as high as ~$1B, again there is no luck to be talked about.
Related question: what happened to the code for it? PG promoted it as an example of what you can do when you're free to do pure Lisp, but as best I can tell Yahoo has since gutted most or all of the Lisp that it ran on.
[+] [-] pg|13 years ago|reply
I was pretty excited about Web apps, which were a new thing then. (We planned eventually to make a whole suite of them; Viaweb Store was just the first.) So I probably would have worked on those in some way. Maybe I would have written some sort of general platform for building them, and/or written a book about that topic.
[+] [-] batgaijin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] primodemus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmix|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] richcollins|13 years ago|reply
There's still time for that. The current solutions leave much to be desired (although they're slowly moving in the right direction).
[+] [-] forgotusername|13 years ago|reply
Following from that, if pg wasn't a "winner" there is very little to differentiate him from what 1,000,000 others have tried and failed. Circumstance and context are a frighteningly arbitrary decider, and therefore I don't think this question is particularly meaningful.
[edit: this is not to suggest that dumb luck alone is enough to create a success, it's just that intelligence and tact alone are often not enough to create success either]
[+] [-] timr|13 years ago|reply
http://www.amazon.com/Adapt-Success-Always-Starts-Failure/dp...
discussing just such a hypothesis:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/04/160555540/episode-...
[+] [-] blacksmythe|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattdeboard|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aptwebapps|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tinco|13 years ago|reply
To me it feels like any of those problems would require the world to be quite different from how it is.
[+] [-] stickfigure|13 years ago|reply
There are a million possible failure cases for any startup, including a large number that are for all practical purposes out of your control - a car accident could disable a key participant, a better competitor could suddenly pounce on the scene, fraudsters could decide to make you a target, etc. With all due respect to PG, you don't have to change the world much to see Viaweb fail. Even with hindsight.
[+] [-] aurora72|13 years ago|reply
I agree with forgotusername's opinion about the luck plays a good part in life, but as long as the Viaweb's concerned, the luck had its minimal share because I still remember in one of pg's articles he was talking about how frequently they have written their code base in order to serve a user experience better than the competition. That's hardly got anything to do with luck.
And if you've ever read all his articles, you might have spotted sections talking about when and how the luck has been playing really impressive role; and there you got it: In the case of Bill Gate's Microsoft. How it suddenly became a multi billion dollar company almost overnight is plain luck.
Also when you consider for how much Viaweb was sold, which was about $50M, and compare it to other sales most of them as high as ~$1B, again there is no luck to be talked about.
[+] [-] SilasX|13 years ago|reply
Edit: essay I had in mind: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] heretohelp|13 years ago|reply
Do you mean not getting acquired, or never making any money or getting any traction?
If the former, he (I would surmise) would've been a lifestyler.