4 ms·

This had to be the least innovative startup PG has ever invested in. I literally had at least 3 friends quitting Facebook because they couldn't stand SocialCam

This had to be the least innovative startup PG has ever invested in. I literally had at least 3 friends quitting Facebook because they couldn't stand SocialCam spam (yes, I am sure there are ways to turn those off, but go ahead and educate half a glob about it -- this crap should be opt-out, not in). Now said that, I'm scared that PG will learn a lesson here and continue this route by investing in more of those, just because it can virally grow (read: spam) on Facebook: PG: what's your idea? Team: we have this awesome website where every click makes a unicorn poops a rainbow bricks! PG: what problem does it solve? how we make money? Team: we haven't figured out this one yet. PG: can we connect via Facebook? Team: oh yes, definitely people will want to share photos of their pooping unicorns with others on their Facebook Wall. PG: ok, that's it! I'm in!

Kiro 14y ago
I find it very unlikely that you had "at least" 3 friends quit Facebook because of SocialCam but whatever you say. I personally think this is exactly the kind of startup PG should invest in anyway. It fits the YC model perfectly.
- joering2 14y ago
  oh yeah? So would you mind telling me what was SocialCam revenue model? My understanding is that PG is investing in startups with at least have some sort of a plan of making profits.
pg 14y ago
We care more about founders than ideas, and the founders of SocialCam are great in every respect: nice, effective, and good technically. And SocialCam itself is necessarily innovative because video sharing is being invented right now. The app looks simple because they worked hard to make it so. So the lesson here is actually one that we learned long ago. Great founders succeed.
- jmathai 14y ago
  Financially, this was probably a great venture. But it's a bit disingenuous to really consider SocialCam as being a positive innovation. It relied on spam and taking advantage of users not knowing that it was "opt-out"[1]. I'm not hating on SocialCam (though I do hate it :)). But let's call it what it is - a good investment. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=socialcam%20sucks https://www.google.com/search?q=socialcam%20sucks
  - tptacek 14y ago
    That's exactly what he just did call it.
    - jmathai 14y ago
      While not explicitly stated, it's implied that the team built a "good" and innovative product. Sure he never said good but he did say that the team is great in every respect going on to list a few. The most explicit way to say it would be, "We got in this one for the money. It's a terrible terrible product in terms of adding value to society but that wasn't our goal on this one". He's entirely entitled to do just that...but don't spin it into something different by skirting the original points he's responding to.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        He said he liked the team. I have my issues with Paul Graham but I'm inclined to believe him when he says a startup has an excellent team. Apparently, he owes you some deeper explanation about how every company YC puts money into --- it's more than 100 every year now, isn't it? --- is managed. Sorry, I didn't mean to get in the way. By all means: cross examine the witness.
- solnyshok 14y ago
  the app is deceptive, in that it spams feed of the user. I blocked it.
loceng 14y ago
Upvoted because this made me laugh.

Kiro 14y ago

I find it very unlikely that you had "at least" 3 friends quit Facebook because of SocialCam but whatever you say. I personally think this is exactly the kind of startup PG should invest in anyway. It fits the YC model perfectly.

joering2 14y ago
oh yeah? So would you mind telling me what was SocialCam revenue model? My understanding is that PG is investing in startups with at least have some sort of a plan of making profits.

pg 14y ago

We care more about founders than ideas, and the founders of SocialCam are great in every respect: nice, effective, and good technically. And SocialCam itself is necessarily innovative because video sharing is being invented right now. The app looks simple because they worked hard to make it so. So the lesson here is actually one that we learned long ago. Great founders succeed.

jmathai 14y ago
Financially, this was probably a great venture. But it's a bit disingenuous to really consider SocialCam as being a positive innovation. It relied on spam and taking advantage of users not knowing that it was "opt-out"[1]. I'm not hating on SocialCam (though I do hate it :)). But let's call it what it is - a good investment. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=socialcam%20sucks https://www.google.com/search?q=socialcam%20sucks
- tptacek 14y ago
  That's exactly what he just did call it.
  - jmathai 14y ago
    While not explicitly stated, it's implied that the team built a "good" and innovative product. Sure he never said good but he did say that the team is great in every respect going on to list a few. The most explicit way to say it would be, "We got in this one for the money. It's a terrible terrible product in terms of adding value to society but that wasn't our goal on this one". He's entirely entitled to do just that...but don't spin it into something different by skirting the original points he's responding to.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      He said he liked the team. I have my issues with Paul Graham but I'm inclined to believe him when he says a startup has an excellent team. Apparently, he owes you some deeper explanation about how every company YC puts money into --- it's more than 100 every year now, isn't it? --- is managed. Sorry, I didn't mean to get in the way. By all means: cross examine the witness.
solnyshok 14y ago
the app is deceptive, in that it spams feed of the user. I blocked it.

loceng 14y ago

Upvoted because this made me laugh.