alt Hacker NewsReading the full context, this is a textbook case of a "Failed Pivot" driven by investors (the publisher).
As a banker, I see the "Advance" not as a loan, but as an Option Fee paid for the author's future output. The publisher tried to exercise that option to force a pivot: "Inject AI into this classic book." They tried to turn a "Shinise" (classic craftsmanship) product into a "Trend" product. The author refused to dilute the quality, so the deal fell through.
Keeping the advance is financially justified. The "R&D" failed not because of the engineer's laziness, but because the stakeholders demanded a feature (AI) that broke the product's architecture. In finance, if the VC forces a bad pivot and the startup fails, the founder doesn't pay back the seed money.
Replies
Where is the part where they forced a pivot? They asked for AI. He said no.
Do they have to return the Advance in this case? Is there any case where it makes sense fo reject the Advance?
[dead]
> Keeping the advance is financially justified.
It didn’t sound like they got the advance (or rather the first half) as they never fully completed the first 1/3 of the book before the deal fell through.