4 ms·

This isn't true at all. Literally nobody doesn't have any traction. Literally nobody has no big possible future. Literally nobody doesn't understand somethin

This isn't true at all. Literally nobody doesn't have any traction. Literally nobody has no big possible future. Literally nobody doesn't understand something that other teams don't. Like, literally 100.000% of startups that are at that interview stage pass every one of these tests with flying colors. Don't believe me? Let's go through what it would take to fail any of these metrics. -------------------------------------------- 1. Let's imagine that a startup doesn't "use plain language and is concrete". Here's what it would have to sound like. I googled "computer science web service patent 2015" so that I could quote the obscure language some link uses. Here is something that isn't plain language, and isn't concrete: A top link, to here https://www.google.com/patents/US8689181 https://www.google.com/patents/US8689181 , seems good. Let's go with it. Here is their language: "A process performed on a server includes configuring the server to enable script for a Web service to be defined dynamically, where the Web service includes an application program interface (API) for enabling access by, and interaction with, a computer program executing on a device other than the server. The process also includes compiling the script to produce machine-executable code for the Web service, receiving a call from the computer program to the Web service, executing the machine-executable code in response to the call to produce an output, and sending the output to the device." This is the top link by Google. Since it's a patent, it's not written in plain language. Since it's a patent, it's not concrete. Question: CAN YOU IMAGINE ANY STARTUP WHO WAS INVITED TO A Y-COMBINATOR INTERVIEW SAYING THIS, "So, first I'd like to talk about our product. We've basically invented a process to be performed on a server, that includes configuring the server to enable script ofr a Web service to be defined dynamically, where the Web service includes an application program interface (API) for enabling access by, and interaction with, a computer program executing on a device other than the server. The process also includes compiling the script to produce machine-executable code for the Web service, receiving a call from the computer program to the Web service, executing the machine-executable code in response to the call to produce an output, and sending the output to the Device. So that's what we do." What percent of applicants will actually literally give a pitch like that? 0.0000%. A full 100.000% meet and exceed with flying colors the standard "use plain language, be concrete." -------------------------------------------- 2. ...Then zoom out, and be sure to show why that could be something much bigger Is it possible that any team whatsoever fails to zoom out, or show why it could be bigger? Well, let's imagine it. Let's say that some team has come up with something without zooming out at all from it. "We've invented a cable that can connect a new iPhone to a Macbook while also charging both. Competitors aren't making this yet, but we already are. We don't have any plans to make any other products now or in the future. We're really, really, passionate about and focused on this one. We live to make iPhone 7 to 2016 Macbook connection cable chargers, and that's it. We would never consider selling anything else, nor would our customers want us to." Even without that last part, can you imagine any such company has even been invited to a YCombinator interview? Is it possible to imagine any company not zoooming out? No. A full 100.000000% of all pitches by companies invited to interview for YCombinator exceed #2 with flying colors. -------------------------------------------- 3. Traction gets you in the door, the big future gets you the check Let's imagine that there's no bright future. Let's imagine a team that says "We're at $2,000 sales today, but within 5 years I think we could easily make it to $18,000 or even $22,000 per month in sales. If we continue to dominate our niche, we can have a solid market of literally a thousand people, if we include the Asian market. This company will be worth $700,000 as long as we are able to keep executing." It's ludicrous on its face. No company is there with that pitch. A full 100.0000% of companies have a big future ahead of them. -------------------------------------------- 4. Know your numbers "What are your sales today?" "No idea." "Have you sold any?" "Not sure." "Well you're shipping." "We're shipping, yes." "Okay, how many?" "Dont' know." "Well, what is your cost to getting customers?" "No idea." "How many people visit your site?" "Don't know" "What is your growth rate?" "Don't know." "How many fingers am I holding up?" "Sorry not sure." it's ridiculous. Obviously 100.00000% of all companies know their numbers. This isn't even debatable. -------------------------------------------- 5. What do you understand that nobody else does? again let's imagine that there isn't something. "Oh we don't know anything special. We're just doing the same thing everyone else is. Actually our business model is from a For Dummies textbook we found from 1997, we're just following it. One thing that we can say is that the book does appear to be out of print, so we do have that going for us." Nope. Everyone understands their business better than their competition. Everyone has secret sauce. It's ridiculous to even suggest otherwise. We're not talking about florists where they happen to be the only florist in that town so far, which is why they opened it there. -------------------------------------------- Conclusion So these tips are absolutely, completely useless in every single way and will NEVER get you an investment. Here is how you ACTUALLY demonstrably get an investment. Ignore all of the above and wow them with a story. That's it. That's how checks demonstrably, actually get written. I'm not opposed to the fact that this isn't widely advertised, but to waste the writer's time writing things that aren't true, and to mislead people into wasting their time following it, is pretty misleading. I'm here to tell you it's bullshit and won't get anyone an investment, ever. - EDIT: Downvotes already, but I don't care, this is right and the article is wrong - and, worse, is wasting your time. It doesn't matter what downvoters think. If anything above were wrong, then I would edit it - I see your voting feedback and I've responded to it by making sure that I am being very precise and correct above. Downvoting won't make it right.

yurisagalov 10y ago
I'm not sure you're aware but Garry was (for many years) a partner at YC, so he's in a pretty good position to offer advice. Also, per the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), could you please resist saying things like "Downvotes already"
- logicallee 10y ago
  The qualification you listed means reading this article is like asking a fish, how to fish. (Or asking a person what they want in a romantic partner and then doing that.) Would you take advice on how to fish, from a fish, or a fisherman? However, this applies to the qualification you listed. Much more impressive is the fact that Garry has closed the Initialized funds (so he's the fishermen, LP's are the fish). For this reason I think that he can do much, much better than the advice given in this article. That accomplishment (which I read about) is super impressive - it's a $115M fund! He knows how he closed it, and he knows that it wasn't by following the rules he's just listed for how to catch some fish. He can do better. I have to stand by my defense of the comment given very swift and definite negative feedback from other people. By mentioning it explicitly, and that I gave it due consideration, I am showing that I am not being a troll or things like that. I could edit it if I felt it was necessary and considered doing so. More important than mentioning or not mentioning downvotes is the policy of keeping HN a civil place of discussion, and I take a very extreme position, that I feel is justified in this case. I am a bit angry by being mislead in the past regarding how to pitch, and this article repeats many of those highly misleading tips. It's simply misleading. It won't get you an investment. And Garry can do better. (Assuming he is honest.) I suppose it is possible that he simply is blind to how he is influenced or makes decisions, even when he uses the same things for his own raising activities, also subconsciously. The advice in this article is not good. It's bad.
  - dlss 10y ago
    > Would you take advice on how to fish, from a fish I think you were joking here, but holy crap yes I would take fishing advice from a fish (provided it was a human-level intelligent fish that spoke english... which if I'm following your metaphor correctly it is in this case) More generally the issue with "not asking fish how to fish" is it's the exact opposite of how successful companies treat customers. I ask my customers how they liked the product, what they'd change, how they'd sell it to other customers, etc, etc. That isn't an error. It's one of the most effective business improvement tactics I know of. This is not to say that the information source is unbiased (customers are much less likely to suggest a price hike for example), or particularly skilled at knowing how to address their needs (they'll ask for a "faster horse" when they mean "gasoline engine" to ruin a quote)... but the fact remains that fish (customers or investors) are the best source of information you have.

yurisagalov 10y ago

I'm not sure you're aware but Garry was (for many years) a partner at YC, so he's in a pretty good position to offer advice. Also, per the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), could you please resist saying things like "Downvotes already"

logicallee 10y ago
The qualification you listed means reading this article is like asking a fish, how to fish. (Or asking a person what they want in a romantic partner and then doing that.) Would you take advice on how to fish, from a fish, or a fisherman? However, this applies to the qualification you listed. Much more impressive is the fact that Garry has closed the Initialized funds (so he's the fishermen, LP's are the fish). For this reason I think that he can do much, much better than the advice given in this article. That accomplishment (which I read about) is super impressive - it's a $115M fund! He knows how he closed it, and he knows that it wasn't by following the rules he's just listed for how to catch some fish. He can do better. I have to stand by my defense of the comment given very swift and definite negative feedback from other people. By mentioning it explicitly, and that I gave it due consideration, I am showing that I am not being a troll or things like that. I could edit it if I felt it was necessary and considered doing so. More important than mentioning or not mentioning downvotes is the policy of keeping HN a civil place of discussion, and I take a very extreme position, that I feel is justified in this case. I am a bit angry by being mislead in the past regarding how to pitch, and this article repeats many of those highly misleading tips. It's simply misleading. It won't get you an investment. And Garry can do better. (Assuming he is honest.) I suppose it is possible that he simply is blind to how he is influenced or makes decisions, even when he uses the same things for his own raising activities, also subconsciously. The advice in this article is not good. It's bad.
- dlss 10y ago
  > Would you take advice on how to fish, from a fish I think you were joking here, but holy crap yes I would take fishing advice from a fish (provided it was a human-level intelligent fish that spoke english... which if I'm following your metaphor correctly it is in this case) More generally the issue with "not asking fish how to fish" is it's the exact opposite of how successful companies treat customers. I ask my customers how they liked the product, what they'd change, how they'd sell it to other customers, etc, etc. That isn't an error. It's one of the most effective business improvement tactics I know of. This is not to say that the information source is unbiased (customers are much less likely to suggest a price hike for example), or particularly skilled at knowing how to address their needs (they'll ask for a "faster horse" when they mean "gasoline engine" to ruin a quote)... but the fact remains that fish (customers or investors) are the best source of information you have.