5 ms·

> guys who did gmail or Youtube and say yes, they got a good exit as far as I know gmail was built at Google internally, it wasn't an acquired startup.

redthrowaway 15y ago
You are correct. I was thinking of Google Maps.
- 6ren 15y ago
  Just a little irony: gmail was created (at Google) by Paul Buchheit, who is now... a YC partner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Buchheit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Buchheit Google itself was focussed on doing something worthwhile - a significant factor in their success was they had a simple, clear homepage, that was just for search - instead of a portal, covered in distracting stuff. They didn't engage in pay-for-placements, so their search results were objective. They were fast (turns out people really value speed). And pagerank was somewhat better (I did comparisons at the time, and search quality was pretty similar - but google felt much better to use because of the other factors). The competing search engines were focussed on monetizing users, instead of doing something useful for them. I think she's claiming that few startups are acting like google did. Yet, google would likely have succeeded as a YC startup, because YC emphasises "building something people want", as opposed to being driven by a business model. YC is attempting to productize startups - to find the rules that maximize startup success. The experimental approach of "lean startups"; trying something fast, then iterating; pivoting all seem to be sensible, and seem to be working. But whenever you have rules, there's possibilities in a complex world that escape them - and that may be where the greatest breakthroughs are. It's true that young people are less familiar with real-world problems (in general, not just in the third world) - yet, many game-changing startups seems to have been founded by young people: apple, microsoft, google etc. Personally, I very much like the idea of changing the world, doing something valuable and not just to make money. Many entrepreneurs have advised that startups are so difficult that money isn't enough of a motivator to get you through. So, in that sense, I agree with her.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    I think you're right on many counts. As far as YC is concerned, I want to emphasize that I have no problem with what they do. It's an engineer's approach to entrepreneurship: quantify, then scale. I get that. I respect it. What concerns me, however, is the broader market trend that it represents. Like any successful business, YC spawned copycats. YC alone has funded 316 companies, and the copycats have funded many more. At that scale, you simply aren't betting on world-changers. You're betting on flippers. Flippers are your bread and butter; they're what keep the incubators going. It's the $20MM acquisitions that keep you going for the next round, and that make kids rich. Here on HN we see a fair number of stories of the form, "We demo'd as x, pivoted to y, and sold to z for $25MM 18 months later. Here's how." I'm happy for the founders' success, and I'm happy for YC's success, but it all seems so...shallow. There's no substance there. Granted, those involved in the deal would likely disagree, but it feels like the commoditization of startups have cheapened them and changed the motivations of founders. The trend I see is a broad one and not limited to one company or YC as a whole, but the ecosystem in general. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
    - projectileboy 15y ago
      If we view "flipping" as simply big companies paying for features and/or people that they would have spent more time and/or money building themselves, then why is this bad? Seems more sensible than the offshore outsourcing model that big companies have tried previously.
    - 6ren 15y ago
      I don't think you need to worry. In the bigger picture, there are many more startups than there used to be (and therefore more "deep" ones, in absolute terms). It's partly due to the cheapness of the technology, though there's also been a social/economic/political shift away from the paternal corporation; and YC itself also definitely helps. Even if most of the startups are shallow (I'm not convinced that's true, but just for the purposes of argument), I think that there are now more "deep" startups than there used to be. As for the startups that don't eventually hit on a real problem to solve, or somehow don't manage to execute, or get blinded-sided by a competitor or otherwise luck out - is it really worse for society that they do this, instead of working at a law firm, or merchant bank, or financial analyst etc? Might they not learn something valuable, that will later benefit society? Can you imagine better training, for initiative, getting things done, working with others, exercising self-discipline than a startup? But I think the bottom line is that if they are getting $25MM payouts, then that shows that our market society is valuing what they're doing. Now, possibly the acquirers are wrong; but that is a fault of our society, not of the startups. And if the acquirers are wrong, it will likely be corrected before long. And, if it isn't, we economically we will be overtaken by a society with healthier, more grounded values - perhaps China. The problem is with "what buyers want", not with the startups who make it. BTW: I totally prefer meaningful startups - both in a technical sense, and in a making things better sense. (e.g. HP put making money as a means to fund technical contribution; and it worked out well for them.) I think that ultimately they will have the greater success, so I think it will all work out in the end.

redthrowaway 15y ago

You are correct. I was thinking of Google Maps.

6ren 15y ago
Just a little irony: gmail was created (at Google) by Paul Buchheit, who is now... a YC partner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Buchheit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Buchheit Google itself was focussed on doing something worthwhile - a significant factor in their success was they had a simple, clear homepage, that was just for search - instead of a portal, covered in distracting stuff. They didn't engage in pay-for-placements, so their search results were objective. They were fast (turns out people really value speed). And pagerank was somewhat better (I did comparisons at the time, and search quality was pretty similar - but google felt much better to use because of the other factors). The competing search engines were focussed on monetizing users, instead of doing something useful for them. I think she's claiming that few startups are acting like google did. Yet, google would likely have succeeded as a YC startup, because YC emphasises "building something people want", as opposed to being driven by a business model. YC is attempting to productize startups - to find the rules that maximize startup success. The experimental approach of "lean startups"; trying something fast, then iterating; pivoting all seem to be sensible, and seem to be working. But whenever you have rules, there's possibilities in a complex world that escape them - and that may be where the greatest breakthroughs are. It's true that young people are less familiar with real-world problems (in general, not just in the third world) - yet, many game-changing startups seems to have been founded by young people: apple, microsoft, google etc. Personally, I very much like the idea of changing the world, doing something valuable and not just to make money. Many entrepreneurs have advised that startups are so difficult that money isn't enough of a motivator to get you through. So, in that sense, I agree with her.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  I think you're right on many counts. As far as YC is concerned, I want to emphasize that I have no problem with what they do. It's an engineer's approach to entrepreneurship: quantify, then scale. I get that. I respect it. What concerns me, however, is the broader market trend that it represents. Like any successful business, YC spawned copycats. YC alone has funded 316 companies, and the copycats have funded many more. At that scale, you simply aren't betting on world-changers. You're betting on flippers. Flippers are your bread and butter; they're what keep the incubators going. It's the $20MM acquisitions that keep you going for the next round, and that make kids rich. Here on HN we see a fair number of stories of the form, "We demo'd as x, pivoted to y, and sold to z for $25MM 18 months later. Here's how." I'm happy for the founders' success, and I'm happy for YC's success, but it all seems so...shallow. There's no substance there. Granted, those involved in the deal would likely disagree, but it feels like the commoditization of startups have cheapened them and changed the motivations of founders. The trend I see is a broad one and not limited to one company or YC as a whole, but the ecosystem in general. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
  - projectileboy 15y ago
    If we view "flipping" as simply big companies paying for features and/or people that they would have spent more time and/or money building themselves, then why is this bad? Seems more sensible than the offshore outsourcing model that big companies have tried previously.
  - 6ren 15y ago
    I don't think you need to worry. In the bigger picture, there are many more startups than there used to be (and therefore more "deep" ones, in absolute terms). It's partly due to the cheapness of the technology, though there's also been a social/economic/political shift away from the paternal corporation; and YC itself also definitely helps. Even if most of the startups are shallow (I'm not convinced that's true, but just for the purposes of argument), I think that there are now more "deep" startups than there used to be. As for the startups that don't eventually hit on a real problem to solve, or somehow don't manage to execute, or get blinded-sided by a competitor or otherwise luck out - is it really worse for society that they do this, instead of working at a law firm, or merchant bank, or financial analyst etc? Might they not learn something valuable, that will later benefit society? Can you imagine better training, for initiative, getting things done, working with others, exercising self-discipline than a startup? But I think the bottom line is that if they are getting $25MM payouts, then that shows that our market society is valuing what they're doing. Now, possibly the acquirers are wrong; but that is a fault of our society, not of the startups. And if the acquirers are wrong, it will likely be corrected before long. And, if it isn't, we economically we will be overtaken by a society with healthier, more grounded values - perhaps China. The problem is with "what buyers want", not with the startups who make it. BTW: I totally prefer meaningful startups - both in a technical sense, and in a making things better sense. (e.g. HP put making money as a means to fund technical contribution; and it worked out well for them.) I think that ultimately they will have the greater success, so I think it will all work out in the end.