3 ms·

They weren't lame products, they were lame companies. Yeah, Google had a better way to search. But it was obvious that Google, without any viable revenue model

They weren't lame products, they were lame companies. Yeah, Google had a better way to search. But it was obvious that Google, without any viable revenue model (they planned to lease their tech to other search engines) could never compete with the might Yahoo! or Excite. Likewise the Altair. Sure it was a great personal computer, but who wanted a personal computer? What would you do with it? (Remember that some of the first Apple Computer commercials showed the Apple ][ being used to store recipes...What do you do at home? You cook. What would you do with a PC? Um, use it to help cook?) I don't think PG is saying anything especially novel in this post. It's the obvious next step from the now-cliche "The best companies start out looking like toys" to "how do I distinguish between the companies that really are toys and the ones that can get big?" The answer is to imagine a way in which they could become big. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, but at least you can weed out the ones that can't.

blazespin 12y ago
The answer is to look at the team, not to look at the idea.
- ganeumann 12y ago
  WebVan.
  - ojbyrne 12y ago
    and, more recently, Color.com.
    - tim333 12y ago
      It's kind on interesting that a lot of the above companies success of those mentioned correlates with founders being smart / high IQ. Gates & Zuck got near perfect SATs, the Google guys are obviously smart, the Airbnb CTO was a Harvard CompSci. The Color guys on the other had went to second string colleges. The exception is Louis Borders at Webvan who did Math at MIT and presumably was smart but still he did ok at Borders and you can't win them all. Maybe the trick is to have smarter guys than the competition. Paul Graham himself kinds of fits - I suspect Viaweb won out against 30 or so competitors not so much because he used lisp as because he was a guy smart enough to design his own lisp.
      - noblethrasher 12y ago
        “The future is already here; it’s just not evenly distributed” Once you throw in the success stories like Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, and James Cameron, it seems that the benefits really accrue to those people that were lucky enough to be near "a lump of the future", and fearless enough to capitalize on it. Of course, you can make your own luck to a degree: One of the big advantages to attending a top research university is that you get exposed to stuff that the rest of the world won’t see for another decade or so. This was especially the case with Bill Gates since he not only had access to a powerful computer while in college, but he also attended a high school that had rare access to a computer. Since smarts correlates with getting into a good university, it makes sense that smart people would be overrepresented in technology success stories. But, then you have Larry Ellison who read research papers and happened to find the one that laid out the theory for relational databases. Like Bill Gates, he got lucky that IBM didn’t fully appreciate the value of that idea. Similarly, James Cameron would go read grad students’ theses while working as a truck driver, after he had dropped out of community college. Steve Jobs was pretty lucky in that he grew up near Silicon Valley when and where a lot of future technology was being invented. But, he was fearless enough to reach out to Bill Hewlett (co-founder of HP) and ended up getting a summer job there. So he got a lump of the future at 12 years old, kind of like Gates did. But here’s the thing about getting access to lumps of the future: thanks to Moore’s Law, any of us can live in the future by spending enough money. But, it does not seem to occur to most programmers that they should be playing with $50K[1] computers instead of the $1-$5K computers that are already yesterday’s machines before they even hit the store shelves. [1] To say nothing of playing with a $192,000 machine, which is equivalent to the one that BG used, adjusted for inflation.
      - ojbyrne 12y ago
        Or perhaps its almost entirely luck, and you're just arguing from a viewpoint of survivorship bias. Phrases like "are obviously smart," "you can't win them all", and "maybe the trick is" certainly suggest that.

blazespin 12y ago

The answer is to look at the team, not to look at the idea.

ganeumann 12y ago
WebVan.
- ojbyrne 12y ago
  and, more recently, Color.com.
  - tim333 12y ago
    It's kind on interesting that a lot of the above companies success of those mentioned correlates with founders being smart / high IQ. Gates & Zuck got near perfect SATs, the Google guys are obviously smart, the Airbnb CTO was a Harvard CompSci. The Color guys on the other had went to second string colleges. The exception is Louis Borders at Webvan who did Math at MIT and presumably was smart but still he did ok at Borders and you can't win them all. Maybe the trick is to have smarter guys than the competition. Paul Graham himself kinds of fits - I suspect Viaweb won out against 30 or so competitors not so much because he used lisp as because he was a guy smart enough to design his own lisp.
    - noblethrasher 12y ago
      “The future is already here; it’s just not evenly distributed” Once you throw in the success stories like Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, and James Cameron, it seems that the benefits really accrue to those people that were lucky enough to be near "a lump of the future", and fearless enough to capitalize on it. Of course, you can make your own luck to a degree: One of the big advantages to attending a top research university is that you get exposed to stuff that the rest of the world won’t see for another decade or so. This was especially the case with Bill Gates since he not only had access to a powerful computer while in college, but he also attended a high school that had rare access to a computer. Since smarts correlates with getting into a good university, it makes sense that smart people would be overrepresented in technology success stories. But, then you have Larry Ellison who read research papers and happened to find the one that laid out the theory for relational databases. Like Bill Gates, he got lucky that IBM didn’t fully appreciate the value of that idea. Similarly, James Cameron would go read grad students’ theses while working as a truck driver, after he had dropped out of community college. Steve Jobs was pretty lucky in that he grew up near Silicon Valley when and where a lot of future technology was being invented. But, he was fearless enough to reach out to Bill Hewlett (co-founder of HP) and ended up getting a summer job there. So he got a lump of the future at 12 years old, kind of like Gates did. But here’s the thing about getting access to lumps of the future: thanks to Moore’s Law, any of us can live in the future by spending enough money. But, it does not seem to occur to most programmers that they should be playing with $50K[1] computers instead of the $1-$5K computers that are already yesterday’s machines before they even hit the store shelves. [1] To say nothing of playing with a $192,000 machine, which is equivalent to the one that BG used, adjusted for inflation.
    - ojbyrne 12y ago
      Or perhaps its almost entirely luck, and you're just arguing from a viewpoint of survivorship bias. Phrases like "are obviously smart," "you can't win them all", and "maybe the trick is" certainly suggest that.