3 ms·

There have been several threads like this pop up from time to time arguing that there are successful paths outside group founded vc backed avenues. I've seen pe

by chimi 14y ago

There have been several threads like this pop up from time to time arguing that there are successful paths outside group founded vc backed avenues. I've seen people list a number of great startups that didn't take your proposed path and you knock them because they don't meet your criteria for successful company. I'll look for a thread, I can't think of any search terms that would lead me to one at the moment. I'm not saying that your data doesn't support your hypothesis, but I think you need to recognize the plethora of examples of single founded companies that achieve great success and know better than to apply to ycombinator because you don't like single founder applicants. As someone else said above, success is relative and people deserve their success even if it isn't a billion dollar IPO or 10x cash out that may, in the end, have left them with less money than they'd make over the life of a smaller achievement through some other path, be it group founded, bootstrapped, or whatever. My point is, there is a lot of greatness to be had that doesn't meet your standard and it'd be nicer to recognize greatness that doesn't follow your rules than to knock it because it is a counterpoint.

pg 14y ago
I don't think you should make this sort of accusation without backing it up. Not so much because it's unfair as because it's probably mistaken: you're probably arguing against opinions you attribute to me rather than anything I've actually said.
- chimi 14y ago
  Here's a thread where you knock "mundane, income-producing businesses..." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=175469 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=175469 As it turns out, it's a carsonified post. Strange. I also remember a post where someone listed a whole bunch of awesome bootstrapped companies and you said, basically, that none of them was at the level you consider successful. EDIT -- here's the one I remembered! Awesome, the thread from 549 days ago no less: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2556959 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2556959 Where someone mentioned a list of successful bootstrapped companies with million $$ exits or revenues and you say: "If you constructed a list of the top technology companies, few to zero of these would appear on it." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2558576 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2558576 Okay, so those companies are (edit: NOT) "Top Technology Companies" but neither are thousands, perhaps millions of group founded, vc funded companies that follow your path either. Your attitude toward bootstrapped and single-founder companies is one of extreme negativity and I don't think it's warranted. Also edit and bit tongue in cheek: Wal-Mart was a single founder company, so the top two retail giants in the entire world were founded by individuals rather than groups, so that data tells me that to be the BIGGEST in the entire world, maybe you should consider being a single founder.
  - pg 14y ago
    Presumably it's the "mundane" you think is disparaging. But it was in reply to this: More of us should be focusing on building simple, focused, small-team web apps that meet everyday needs. Am I saying we should kill our dreams of changing the world? No. But we all need to admit that YouTube, Facebook, Bebo, Google and Twitter just aren’t the norm. Instead of desperately trying to create the next phenomenon, which is highly unlikely, why not aim for something that’s definitely achievable? I.e. The word "mundane" was simply a reference to the concept he introduces of something that is not a phenomenon, but instead meets everyday needs. Considering that the example Merriam-Webster gives of the use of mundane is the mundane concerns of day-to-day life it seems to me I got about as close as one can to choosing the perfect adjective for things that "meet everyday needs." This is why I hate arguing on the Internet. All this work for nothing.
    - marshallp 14y ago
      That's really pushing it PG, it's quite clear what your actual intent was. You dislike arguing on the net because you don't want to be called out on your mistakes.
    - jmilloy 14y ago
      No, the mundane was not disparaging. It was the previous sentence where you suggested that anyone defining success differently from you was "behind", which is exactly the point. Consider the alternative, where you simply argue for why a certain threshold is the correct one for success, without casting a judgement on people who think differently than you. It doesn't even matter if the statement is objectively accurate; it's irrelevant and disparaging.
  - pg 14y ago
    As for your other example (which is about bootstrapped companies, which is not even the topic of this thread), I'm not gratuitously introducing the concept of top technology companies as a way of disparaging the companies he lists. That concept was introduced in the grandparent: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2557078 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2557078 What sentence in that comment is false?
- josephlord 14y ago
  You wrote a recent blog claiming the entire word of startup for high growth companies suitable for venture funding. While I seem to remember there being asides that other models were valid businesses and valid choices the overall impression given was that any company not swinging for the big win didn't deserve to use the word. Your blog post was completely right that they don't make financial sense for Y-Combinator or VC generally but it didn't need to claim the word. Just calling the VC suitable companies 'high growth startups' or 'venture companies' rather than denying any other new business the use of the term would not have lost anything from the meaning without appearing so dismissive of other models.

by chimi 14y ago

pg 14y ago

I don't think you should make this sort of accusation without backing it up. Not so much because it's unfair as because it's probably mistaken: you're probably arguing against opinions you attribute to me rather than anything I've actually said.

chimi 14y ago
Here's a thread where you knock "mundane, income-producing businesses..." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=175469 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=175469 As it turns out, it's a carsonified post. Strange. I also remember a post where someone listed a whole bunch of awesome bootstrapped companies and you said, basically, that none of them was at the level you consider successful. EDIT -- here's the one I remembered! Awesome, the thread from 549 days ago no less: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2556959 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2556959 Where someone mentioned a list of successful bootstrapped companies with million $$ exits or revenues and you say: "If you constructed a list of the top technology companies, few to zero of these would appear on it." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2558576 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2558576 Okay, so those companies are (edit: NOT) "Top Technology Companies" but neither are thousands, perhaps millions of group founded, vc funded companies that follow your path either. Your attitude toward bootstrapped and single-founder companies is one of extreme negativity and I don't think it's warranted. Also edit and bit tongue in cheek: Wal-Mart was a single founder company, so the top two retail giants in the entire world were founded by individuals rather than groups, so that data tells me that to be the BIGGEST in the entire world, maybe you should consider being a single founder.
- pg 14y ago
  Presumably it's the "mundane" you think is disparaging. But it was in reply to this: More of us should be focusing on building simple, focused, small-team web apps that meet everyday needs. Am I saying we should kill our dreams of changing the world? No. But we all need to admit that YouTube, Facebook, Bebo, Google and Twitter just aren’t the norm. Instead of desperately trying to create the next phenomenon, which is highly unlikely, why not aim for something that’s definitely achievable? I.e. The word "mundane" was simply a reference to the concept he introduces of something that is not a phenomenon, but instead meets everyday needs. Considering that the example Merriam-Webster gives of the use of mundane is the mundane concerns of day-to-day life it seems to me I got about as close as one can to choosing the perfect adjective for things that "meet everyday needs." This is why I hate arguing on the Internet. All this work for nothing.
  - marshallp 14y ago
    That's really pushing it PG, it's quite clear what your actual intent was. You dislike arguing on the net because you don't want to be called out on your mistakes.
  - jmilloy 14y ago
    No, the mundane was not disparaging. It was the previous sentence where you suggested that anyone defining success differently from you was "behind", which is exactly the point. Consider the alternative, where you simply argue for why a certain threshold is the correct one for success, without casting a judgement on people who think differently than you. It doesn't even matter if the statement is objectively accurate; it's irrelevant and disparaging.
- pg 14y ago
  As for your other example (which is about bootstrapped companies, which is not even the topic of this thread), I'm not gratuitously introducing the concept of top technology companies as a way of disparaging the companies he lists. That concept was introduced in the grandparent: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2557078 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2557078 What sentence in that comment is false?
josephlord 14y ago
You wrote a recent blog claiming the entire word of startup for high growth companies suitable for venture funding. While I seem to remember there being asides that other models were valid businesses and valid choices the overall impression given was that any company not swinging for the big win didn't deserve to use the word. Your blog post was completely right that they don't make financial sense for Y-Combinator or VC generally but it didn't need to claim the word. Just calling the VC suitable companies 'high growth startups' or 'venture companies' rather than denying any other new business the use of the term would not have lost anything from the meaning without appearing so dismissive of other models.