That seems like a lot of excellent advice except in cases where "it depends" and the advice is not good or some other advice would be better. > If we invest in

That seems like a lot of excellent advice except in cases where "it depends" and the advice is not good or some other advice would be better. > If we invest in you, your group is expected to move to the Bay Area for January--March 2018. You can of course leave afterward if you want, but it's a good place for a startup to be. IMHO it's a horrible place to be, way too expensive, and anyone not really wealthy should get the heck out ASAP. It's the state of Governor Moonbeam and the district of Nasty Nancy, "The San Francisco Treat". > we expect you to work out of wherever you find to live. I agree with that. IIRC, some places there can be zoning and insurance issues operating a business out of residential housing. > At each dinner we'll invite an expert in some aspect of startups to speak. Biggie problem: For the startups that are really wanted, eventually worth $10+ billion, there are not many experts from the past and many fewer for the next dozen such in the future. Indeed, for the next $10+ billion startups, a guess is that they will be different from last $10+ billion startups, mostly need to be something quite new in some of problems solved, technology used, market, and customers served. Then the new stuff might be from field crossing and not from what is in Silicon Valley or computer science now. > Most successful startups change their idea substantially. Not very good news. > The ideal company would have two or three founders. We'll consider those with four or five. We're reluctant to accept one-person companies, though we have funded many of them now. But notice the advice > It turns out most companies fail fast because founders fall out. Right. And the obvious solution is to be a sole, solo founder where > We're reluctant to accept one-person companies, For > Make something people want. Yes, but at first, nearly no one knew they wanted a telephone, a Ford Model-T, a PC, Google, or Facebook. > the guidance below will help most startups find their path to success But "most startups" will be at most a minor success. So far we get another Google only about once each ten years. So, the advice that works for "most startups" doesn't have to work for the next Google or even the next 10 startups worth $10+ billion. > The first thing we always tell founders is to launch their product right away; That is good advice for some startups, but for other startups there is the issue of "You only get one chance to make a good first impression." > ... for the simple reason that this is the only way to fully understand customers’ problems and whether the product meets their needs. Again, that's good advice for some startups, but we would hope that the situation was: (A) The startup has picked a problem currently solved at best poorly where it is totally, 100%, completely utterly clear that the first good, a much better, or an excellent solution will just thrill enough users/customers with enough revenue per each to make a really successful business. The great example would be a cheap, safe, effective one pill taken once to cure any cancer. Believe me, once someone has such a cancer pill, no way will they then be out talking to customers for feedback about, say, the color (white or yellow) or shape (round, oval) of the pill. Instead, as soon as that pill is known to exist, desperate customers will literally be banging on the doors to get one. (B) The challenge is not at all having the first good solution thrill the users/customers but just being able actually to construct that solution. That is, as for that cancer pill, the reason there is no solution now is that so far no one has been able to find one. So, the solution will need something new, some secret sauce in some important respects too difficult for others to discover. Then hide the secret sauce, say, in a server farm, with good security. > Surprisingly, launching a mediocre product as soon as possible, and then talking to customers and iterating, is much better than waiting to build the “perfect” product. Sure. And "The perfect can be the enemy of the very good." But the > talking to customers and iterating is not very good for all startups. > Once launched, we suggest founders do things that don’t scale (Do Things That Don’t Scale by Paul Graham1). Okay, but how did that little photography experiment lead to "a vibrant marketplace"? Maybe you are saying that the photography experiment said that pictures are important. Then the scalable, production version was to tell the AirBnB associates that they needed to hire an okay or better photographer to take pictures, e.g., much as in the experiment. > Talking to users usually yields a long, complicated list of features to build. Maybe. But Google has hardly changed their home page in years. > a 100% solution that takes ages to build. Creating unique, powerful, valuable, crucial core "secret sauce" is, say, some applied math research, and that by the right person commonly can be done in hours, days, or weeks. Then write the darned code, dirt simple code, and go for it. E.g., I worked out the main parts of my Ph.D. dissertation research in my head in an airplane ride. The resulting dissertation had some nice improvements but was always well within what I first worked out. This "ages to build" stuff suggests finding another problem to solve. > As companies begin to grow there are often tons of potential distractions. By far the worst I found was contacting VCs. I'll never do that again. It'd be better to start a grass mowing service than trying to get equity funding. Besides, now, for an information technology startup based on software, the computing hardware, software infrastructure, and Internet data rates are so cheap that a solo founder, with a good startup selection, can bring his work to the traction equity funders want that will put him into nice profitability and ability to grow just from retained earnings. The equity funders are asking for too much: By the time a solo founder has what the equity funders want, that founder will no longer need, want, or accept an equity check. > chasing after press coverage That can be one of the most important sources of publicity and users/customers. Remember: You want your story told, and the press desperately wants a story to tell. > the most important tasks for an early stage company are to write code and talk to users. That's true for some startups, but such a startup is usually going to be in a sad situation. Instead, the founders should already have a good problem to solve. By the time the customers see the good alpha test, the company should be in quite good shape with very little more code to write until, say, much bigger scale is needed. > For any company, software or otherwise, this means that in order to make something people want: You must launch something, talk to your users to see if it serves their needs, and then take their feedback and iterate. This advice can hold for some companies, but not all. Instead, some startups have already selected a good problem and found a good solution. > These tasks should occupy almost all of your time/focus. For great companies this cycle never ends. Again, Google has hardly changed their home page in years. > Similarly, as your company evolves there will be many times where founders are forced to choose between multiple directions for their company. Again, Google has hardly changed their home page in years. > When it comes to customers most founders don’t realize that they get to choose customers as much as customers get to choose them. We often say that a small group of customers who love you is better than a large group who kind of like you. Sometimes, yes. E.g., does an auto company go for the Rolls Royce, Mercedes, BMW, Chevy SUV, Ford F-150, etc. market? > YC is sometimes criticized for pushing companies to grow at all costs, but in fact we push companies to talk to their users, build what they want, and iterate quickly. That talking and iterating stuff only works for some startups. > It is very difficult as a new startup founder not to obsess about competition, actual and potential. It turns out that spending any time worrying about your competitors is nearly always a very bad idea. We like to say that startup companies always die of suicide not murder. There will come a time when competitive dynamics are intensely important to the success or failure of your company, but it is highly unlikely to be true in the first year or two. Again, that doesn't apply to all startups, but it's good news, and I can believe it often applies. > A few words on fund raising (A Guide to Seed Fund raising by Geoff Ralston9). The first, best bit of advice is to raise money as quickly as possible and then get back to work. Better advice: (A) Pick a problem and solution so that you, as a solo founder, won't need equity funding. (B) If you contact 20 VC firms and don't get a check, then give up on VC at least for a while. (C) Do "get back to work". > It turns out most companies fail fast because founders fall out. So, as above, be a solo founder. So, pick a pair of a problem and good solution that you as a solo founder can bring to nice profitability alone without equity funding.