3 ms·

If someone wants to claim "very small companies are more likely to try something legally dubious because they have very little to lose," that's a completely dif

by portLAN 19y ago

If someone wants to claim "very small companies are more likely to try something legally dubious because they have very little to lose," that's a completely different argument. Not to mention, YouTube and then Google had to pay up in order to square things away and neutralize the risk. Big companies are more comfortable playing fast and loose with the rights of individuals, while individuals and very small companies are more comfortable antagonizing powerful corporations. Start-ups are NOT the best way to develop software. Start-ups are inherently inefficient. On top of doing the development, you have to take care of all the paperwork and technicalities of running a business. YC makes you move, which is a big interruption (you should only be moving if you NEED that interruption to leave behind all the distraction; some people are already coding like crazy and having to rearrange their lives like that just gets them off-track). You are trying to market yourself. The list goes on and on; I can't find the thread but somewhere PG said he only spent 20% of the time actually coding (my memory may be faulty, it might be 50%). By contrast, working at Google you don't even have to cook -- they try to take care of all the minutiae. It's really no surprise that whatever they buy, the vast majority of the work is done post-acquisition. The real purpose a start-up serves is as an advertisement that these people are very dedicated on that project -- when they are bought they are paid EXTRA to work on whatever they already wanted to work on anyway. [1] THAT is the key difference. Most employees are hired to do some job they don't care about for some crummy wage, so no surprise productivity isn't high. If Google bought up start-ups and then reassigned everyone to other projects, nothing would get done. You don't get dedicated "in general", you are dedicated ONLY to what you're very interested in. Hiring isn't obsolete; hiring people based on generality to do some unspecified thing for average pay is obsolete. It's simply a quirk that there are currently two models -- the useless traditional one and the "find people at another company who are already doing something and then pay them MORE to keep doing what they want to do ANYWAY" one. It has always been obvious that letting people choose what they want to do and paying them more money for it yields better results than telling people to do something they probably have little interest in and paying them less money to do it. Start-ups are a bad model for actual development because of the overhead. They are a good model for picking a certain type of people. I think PG just has this reversed. [1] As a caveat, not everyone is dedicated to their technical ideas; they are dedicated to making a lot of money. Once they make the money, they stop working on the idea or anything like it. This seems to be what happened with ViaWeb, and would explain a couple of things: One, why PG is so insistent on "flexibility" and steering a lot of people away from their initial idea (because that's what he did -- except he wasn't passionate about the art gallery thing in the first place, so it's a lot easier to switch gears). Two, having steered applicants away from their initial idea, if they were dedicated to that, you've now turned them into people who are dedicated to the new thing for money only, and this could explain why YC's picks haven't been more successful. Your spirits also flag more when you're working on something you don't really believe in, which is why having a co-founder to lean on is more important. Plus there's the overhead -- how many of these start-up groups have a "business guy" as one of the co-founders? It's an inefficient ratio; imagine if every time Google hired a programmer they also had to hire a "business guy" for him. I think it's pretty clear YC is much more compelling to PG than Yahoo! Store ever was. He could make a lot more money at it, too, if he doesn't steer the dedicated people away from what they are dedicated to.

staunch 19y ago
I'm not claiming startups are efficient. I'm just claiming they're better at producing new great stuff and that big companies suck at it. You don't seem to really disagree about that. Google and Microsoft have many thousands above average programmers with all the resources in the world and they're producing very little new great stuff, as defined by the market. That's why they buy startups as seeds of success, which their companies are capable of growing into big money-making trees. Microsoft has historically always been this way, even in the very early days. Almost every single one of their significantly successful projects was bought as a seed from a startup and grown from within. They do add a lot of hard work, but the irreplaceable ingredients are done by startups. Google and Microsoft are in at least tacit agreement that startups are the best way anyone has found to develop great new software.
- portLAN 19y ago
  I didn't mention Microsoft -- I would not hold them up as a shining example of software development. >startups are the best way anyone has found to develop great new software YC's program is 10 weeks. The time ALONE means they aren't developing great new software that other people can't make. Back to your Microsoft example, they were notorious for having people demo for them, then stealing the idea and developing it in-house. (Remember how start-ups were all scared of going into a market segment Microsoft might want?) A start-up isn't even a good way of getting an audience, which is what Reddit, YouTube, etc. were bought for, because chances are your start-up will fail. The reason start-ups collectively work is there are so many of them, a big company can just acquire the winners. Focusing on only the hits and ignoring the misses is a hallmark of pseudoscience, so if we're going to trumpet the winners let's compare that to the vastly larger deadpool. Start-ups are 10x more effective in producing stuff that goes nowhere. Big companies are automatically better at producing stuff people use than 90% of start-ups for that reason alone. > I'm just claiming they're better at producing new great stuff and that big companies suck at it. I think this is a case of "the overwhelming majority of great developers do not work at YOUR company". Numbers alone mean that more great ideas will come from outside your company than from within. More new stuff will always come from everyone not at company X than at company X. Working at Google doesn't seem to stop people, hired or acquired, from coming up with good stuff, so once again we're back to start-ups being an advertisement of who's dedicated rather than a superior development methodology. I mean there are only so many ways you can just sit there and code, there's nothing magical about doing it in a cramped apartment. And it's demonstrably worse to do it on ramen than on free gourmet health food. The reason Joe Kraus and others romanticize it is because they were young, it was new and exciting, and they were doing it with a bunch of their friends. That's a good recipe for getting something done, but the code's going to be a mess if you're inexperienced, and worse if you're rushing to a demo. Out of large numbers of people getting something done, some of those will be a lot better than others. It's a numbers game. VCs fund, what, way less than 1%?

by portLAN 19y ago

staunch 19y ago

I'm not claiming startups are efficient. I'm just claiming they're better at producing new great stuff and that big companies suck at it. You don't seem to really disagree about that. Google and Microsoft have many thousands above average programmers with all the resources in the world and they're producing very little new great stuff, as defined by the market. That's why they buy startups as seeds of success, which their companies are capable of growing into big money-making trees. Microsoft has historically always been this way, even in the very early days. Almost every single one of their significantly successful projects was bought as a seed from a startup and grown from within. They do add a lot of hard work, but the irreplaceable ingredients are done by startups. Google and Microsoft are in at least tacit agreement that startups are the best way anyone has found to develop great new software.

portLAN 19y ago
I didn't mention Microsoft -- I would not hold them up as a shining example of software development. >startups are the best way anyone has found to develop great new software YC's program is 10 weeks. The time ALONE means they aren't developing great new software that other people can't make. Back to your Microsoft example, they were notorious for having people demo for them, then stealing the idea and developing it in-house. (Remember how start-ups were all scared of going into a market segment Microsoft might want?) A start-up isn't even a good way of getting an audience, which is what Reddit, YouTube, etc. were bought for, because chances are your start-up will fail. The reason start-ups collectively work is there are so many of them, a big company can just acquire the winners. Focusing on only the hits and ignoring the misses is a hallmark of pseudoscience, so if we're going to trumpet the winners let's compare that to the vastly larger deadpool. Start-ups are 10x more effective in producing stuff that goes nowhere. Big companies are automatically better at producing stuff people use than 90% of start-ups for that reason alone. > I'm just claiming they're better at producing new great stuff and that big companies suck at it. I think this is a case of "the overwhelming majority of great developers do not work at YOUR company". Numbers alone mean that more great ideas will come from outside your company than from within. More new stuff will always come from everyone not at company X than at company X. Working at Google doesn't seem to stop people, hired or acquired, from coming up with good stuff, so once again we're back to start-ups being an advertisement of who's dedicated rather than a superior development methodology. I mean there are only so many ways you can just sit there and code, there's nothing magical about doing it in a cramped apartment. And it's demonstrably worse to do it on ramen than on free gourmet health food. The reason Joe Kraus and others romanticize it is because they were young, it was new and exciting, and they were doing it with a bunch of their friends. That's a good recipe for getting something done, but the code's going to be a mess if you're inexperienced, and worse if you're rushing to a demo. Out of large numbers of people getting something done, some of those will be a lot better than others. It's a numbers game. VCs fund, what, way less than 1%?