6 ms·

Sure--the vast majority of ideas just can't support a multi-billion dollar business. But a lot can, and poor execution is why they don't.

• teacup50 11y ago
  Don't you feel the least bit of reservation selling young kids on the idea that they're likely to create a "multi-billion dollar business" by running through a grist-mill of a program that -- by your own admission -- isn't sustainable for most of them? The vast majority will not achieve that goal (you don't need them to, either -- for sustainability, all you need is a few winners), and in the process, I can't help but feel that they're stunting their career, technical, and personal growth by approaching critical period of their lives with the belief that your economic model of the universe applies equally to them.
  • sama 11y ago
    No, I don't. We try to be up front that they have a high chance of failure. But I truly believe that there is nothing better for their career, technical, and personal growth than doing a startup they're passionate about (we try to filter out the people that want to do a startup for a resume item). Also, one of the advantage of YC is that if the startup doesn't work out, founders have made a lot of connections in the network and can usually find something interesting to do next. As I've said before, I think the actual risky path is not pursuing what you really want to do and then spending the rest of your life regretting it.
    • mkagenius 11y ago
      Do you think, its because YC didn't change the actual (slacking) nature of founders in 3 months? Peer pressure once there is no longer there and you can't replicate that easily.
      • eloff 11y ago
        I don't think it's fair to use the term slacking here. At worst they're people who focus on the wrong things and don't prioritize their resources optimally. Considering the number who burnout, they're likely working very hard, just not on the things that will matter in the end.
        • benologist 11y ago
          I also think it's real and sometimes hard work, like migrating from Angular to React which could make a company grow immensely, especially if even more time is invested in blogging about the process.
          • eloff 11y ago
            I don't think migrating from Angular to React is real work. If it takes a long time, it's probably best to stay with Angular. A failed company using Angular is the same as a failed company using React. Better to spend your time iterating on the product and acquiring customers. If you succeed you can always migrate later. It will cost more, but you will have more resources too. Doing something like that in an early stage startup just has too high of an opportunity cost. It's exactly the kind of fake work Altman is talking about.
            • benologist 11y ago
              I was trying to be sarcastic but in hindsight it was a bit too plausible around here heh.
              • eloff 11y ago
                I was hoping you were being sarcastic. The trouble with sarcasm is it's indistinguishable from foolish sincerity, which abounds on the interwebs. Without facial or voice cues, there's no way to know. That's why you have to use the /sarcasm tag.
          • deleted 11y ago
            [deleted]
    • wtvanhest 11y ago
      I had an idea 5 years ago for a company. When I had built the right experience and the legal environment changed to support the business I left my job and pursued it relentlessly. We added a few people (part-time) raised a little money, but ultimately we couldn't get the product market fit we needed to feel comfortable that we could grow and keep our integrity (we were a financial product). A few weeks ago I shut down the business and I'm about to find something new. The fact that I lost a year of income is completely irrelevant vs the regret I would have faced had I never made the leap. Even without YC my network has strengthened considerably and I learned more in a year than I thought possible. I have read a ton, watched all the startup school videos, talked to a lot of founders and tried to understand how to do this well. The fake work problem is real and even while paying extreme attention to it, often times I would waste a few hours doing something that would not increase the probability of success. Code and talk to customers. It's so, so crucial. Starting a fast growth company is not for everyone, but for those that want to do it, YC's information is gold. Thanks for everything you guys have put out.
    • teacup50 11y ago
      My impression of YC's marketing is an appeal to hubris (and often, the hubris of youth). Most will fail, but none believe it will be them, and in the process, they position themselves outside of an environment in which they'd otherwise have access to people with technical and sustainable business experience from which they can learn what (and what not) to do. I'm a lot happier having spent 10 years building a sustainable company doing what I really want to do, than I ever was at exciting startups during the v1 .com bubble. Getting to that point, however, required putting in a lot more than 3 months -- or 3 years -- of backbreaking effort.
      • silverlake 11y ago
        sama's response is correct. There's no real downside to doing YC when you're young. If you succeed, you get rich. If you don't, you can probably find work at another YC company that is succeeding. If you can't, then having YC on your resume will probably help you land a job at another startup. No YC founder will ever go hungry.
        • teacup50 11y ago
          There's a long, long road between not "going hungry" and maximizing your individual potential, and anyone that survived the first .com bubble unscathed knows that the latter has far more lasting power.
  • presty 11y ago
    I'd posit that very few who go through YC stunt their career growth even when failing.
  • _sentient 11y ago
    The median age of YC founders is 30. These aren't the pliable, simple-minded children of your caricature. Many of them are accomplished entrepreneurs who understand power law dynamics perfectly. Further, I think nearly every founder who has gone through YC would report that, succeed or fail, they are net-benefited by the experience. Rather than stunting an individual, the exercise of founding a startup is probably one of the best ways to rapidly increase your skill-set over a short time frame.
    • toomuchtodo 11y ago
      I would agree with you that attempting a startup is a net positive career, and even life, experience. I would disagree that you should grind away for it on years. If YC is confident that hustle/effort is the problem, they should be hiring engineers directly, pay them market rate, and keep all of the equity in their projects to themselves instead of having founders shoulder the risk.
      • SandersAK 11y ago
        I think a lot of your replies and central argument is very thoughtful, but the one thing to consider is that successful startups are the result of unreasonable exertions of will, unreasonable amounts of luck, and an unreasonable amount of risk. If it were reasonable, I don't think the value created would be so great. While I don't disagree with your points on a macro, startups are very specific entities, and their success is contingent upon founders (and team members) who are willing to do unreasonable things. And also be extremely lucky.
        • toomuchtodo 11y ago
          Thank you. I agree with your points as well.
  • anujdeshpande 11y ago
    Isn't it easier to take risks when you are younger? So even if it's not sustainable, wouldn't it be better advised to do something with fewer chances of success early one in life ?
    • teacup50 11y ago
      It's easier to take risks, and it's also cheaper for YC. Your chances of success, however, are much higher with more experience and resources at your disposal.
  • austenallred 11y ago
    The people he's telling to grind are those that have millions in funding. So you work hard, pay yourself, and if it fails you had a great job and a great experience, and you can go get a better job than you could have when you started. Sure, you worked harder than someone who has a boring 9-5, but you're not turning yourself an indentured servant until the end of time. Your only risk is the additional time/effort.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
• thethethe 11y ago
  You say a vast majority can't, but then go on to say that a lot can. What do you define as "a lot"? What do you define as a "vast majority"?
• harryh 11y ago
  It would be interesting to put together a list of these "good idea, but poor execution" ideas. It would probably be a good list of things to try again.
  • clogston 11y ago
    Even more sadistic, have an entire batch dedicated to ONE of those ideas and see which company has the least poor execution.
    • derefr 11y ago
      That's what you get from an X prize, usually. It would be interesting to see an X prize that also had some base level of pre-funding for all entrants.
  • lawstudent2 11y ago
    In the world of business, good ideas are literally priceless - in that they have literally no value. Good ideas aren't even that important to a business. Good execution is what matters. Even sub-optimal ideas can be billion dollar businesses. I still think that the basic idea behind twitter is only mediocre, but it is so excellently executed that it is a joy to use. The same applies for pinterest. They are just not great "ideas." But the execution is phenomenal. Let's put it another way. When you say: >It would be interesting to put together a list of these "good idea, but poor execution" ideas. I read: >It would be interesting to put together a list of these "execution plans but poor execution" ideas. There is absolutely no way to separate out the "good idea" from the "good idea but poor execution" because business is the art of execution. But maybe I'm crazy.
    • logicallee 11y ago
      yes and no. If as a game you were given eight years to read and learn (but not take with you) whatever documentation you wanted about technical knowledge (only), and then sent back to New York in 1860 with $1,000,000 in 1860 bills and the goal of the game is to make as large a fortune as you can in 20 years... then it should be obvious to anyone that the ideas you would have are incredibly valuable...literally priceless. They represent without exaggeration trillions of dollars of research over 155 years. You can patent entire industries and fundamental advances. The hard part is just choosing what to focus on, that you can actually do in 1860 starting with $1,000,000 and maybe the patent system (though it's probably unfair that you're using a time machine - this is likely quite immoral as you're not the true inventor of anything.) And then doing it. In other words: the outcome of the game is about execution. But what you're executing is idea. The two go hand in hand. You have a real chance to become worth 2015$ 1 trillion within the 20 years - or generate a one-million fold return on the million. You can be worth as much as entire continents. But you have to do it right. For starters, you have to be someone whose brain can ship those technical ideas back to 1860 in one piece. This is quite similar to someone with an idea today. Not everyone qualifies.
• larrys 11y ago
  "and poor execution is why they don't" Luck and timing no doubt play a very important role in addition to simply poor execution. Also even excellent execution doesn't take into account how the market will respond to what you are making or trying to sell which can't always be determined prior to actually going through the motions.