5 ms·
As much as I'd love to hold power over other mortals, I'll have to recuse myself here. I publicly made fun of Drew Houston and gang when they started and again
by newjersey 11y ago
As much as I'd love to hold power over other mortals, I'll have to recuse myself here. I publicly made fun of Drew Houston and gang when they started and again when they reportedly rejected Apple's advances. Without a crystal ball, it just feels like we're just betting here.
Are we betting on the viability of a product or idea? Are we betting on the founders? Are we betting on the team's ability to deliver? So many questions... I can't answer any of them but I'd welcome people thinking bout loud and look forward to reading these ideas. (:
Edit: recuse not revise
- kevin 11y agoAlways betting on the founders. Ideas sometimes change. Markets sometimes change. What gets people tripped up is that you sometimes judge a founder indirectly by seeing how they communicate an idea, looking at their ability to deliver, and hearing about how they think about the market. The answers to those questions are important, but we put it in the context of what does it say about the founder.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- brlewis 11y agoI think they want something complementary to the existing system. If you had approved Drew Houston and gang you would not be adding anything since YC also approved them. Look for a sign of potential success that YC would miss. One advantage HN has is more time to think. HNers will look at a much smaller stack of applications, and won't be restricted by the brief interview format YC has.
- furyofantares 11y agoNot so fast! If everyone who couldn't bet as well as the crowd chose to defer to the crowd there would be no crowd.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]