5 ms·
It seems to me they're not evaluating the pair {problem, solution}, they're evaluating the pair {problem, founder} - the solution may be changed and tweaked and
by cardosof 5y ago
It seems to me they're not evaluating the pair {problem, solution}, they're evaluating the pair {problem, founder} - the solution may be changed and tweaked and not be special but the founder has to be special, and carefully designed charts with pretty numbers don't explain a founder, emotional speeches do.
- joeberon 5y agoHow are you inferring that from this blog post? Everything about it seems to be saying "I've heard this solution a million times, and seen a million failures, do you have anything new?" The answer is to have a solution that has not seen a million failures.
- CamperBob2 5y agoSeems like the sort of thing that wants to be a game. If you asked me to name a successful "urban exploration" startup, I'd probably name Pokemon Go and maybe Groupon. The former isn't a "startup" companywise, and the latter isn't one now, but both were certainly novel, and strongly adjacent to the space under discussion. They both got people out of their homes and offices and into unfamiliar parts of town. My guess is the ultimate winner will find a way to hit both the Pokemon Go and Groupon psychological buttons at once.
- gerbilly 5y agoBecause, just like the author of the blog, most of us have trained ourselves not to share these kinds of feelings. In his pitch the founder conceived/pitched the solution as a veiled way to talk about his real problem. I see it at my job all the time, we talk about technical problems and their solutions as a way of trying to share our fears, anxieties and feelings. All the heady technical talk is just a proxy for what we really wish we could say. I know this because I'm often the only one on the team brave enough to state the subtext openly, and have I often been thanked for that. Every team needs a therapist, it would seem.
- joeberon 5y agoWhat the fuck are you on about?
- gerbilly 5y agoYes, sorry I replied to a different interpretation of your question I guess. I was trying to say that YC may be looking past the solution to the real underlying issue. To me this would make sense. We often start out with a problem that bugs us, and then come up with a half baked solution. Even if the proposed solution isn't valid the founder may have identified a valid problem. In our crowded marketplace, a unique and unmet need is much harder to find than a technical solution.
- Gravityloss 5y agoOften, a cigar is not a cigar.
- joeberon 5y agoEven more inane and cryptic
- Marlondu28100 5y agoBhjjjj
- lifeisstillgood 5y agoPlease. That is quite unwarranted. I happen to agree with the GP sentiment - business is an emotional endeavour, and treating it as such is a good idea.
- joeberon 5y agoI've had enough of these GPT-3 generated spam-looking posts
- cardosof 5y agoThis comment is a refreshing take on what real work looks like - thanks for sharing.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y agopg has in the past been quite blunt that he sees the quality of the founders as the most important thing, regardless of the solution. As has repeated time and time again to the point of almost becoming mythology in my opinion, pg has posted about how he originally hated the AirBnB idea but loved the founders.
- joeberon 5y agopg is lying or a moron
- TheOtherHobbes 5y agoNo, the answer is not to be one of the million failures. Which apparently means keeping your passion under pressure.
- naasking 5y ago> It seems to me they're not evaluating the pair {problem, solution}, they're evaluating the pair {problem, founder} I think that's a good insight. "Plans never survive contact with the enemy", and so solutions are constantly changing as a startup explores the problem space. Perhaps what VCs are actually looking for is: 1. The founder identified a problem that actually exists. 2. The problem actually has a solution that can be monetized, in theory. 3. They have confidence that the founder can hone in on a viable solution that can be monetized. The pitch doesn't have to be the solution, it only has to show that a financially viable path to a solution plausibly exists, and that the founder seems competent enough to find the way towards a financially viable outcome. If even one of the above requirements isn't satisfied, investing money doesn't seem sensible.
- dkarp 5y agoOr as Mike Tyson put it: Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth
- bobthechef 5y agoOr: How do you make God laugh? Tell Him your plans.
- anamax 5y agoThe evaluation is {solution, founder}. Problem is, in some sense, irrelevant. You don't make money from the problem. A good founder makes money from a solution.