Startup Playbook • Hacker News Board

Re: Startup Playbook

#31

Post by CountdownGraph » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 6:41 PM UTC

I have a really hard time buying a lot of this about how novelty and monopoly are keys to a successful company. If you look at the really successful startups, especially unicorns, almost none of them are actually monopolies or new ideas. The vast, vast majority are old products done right, and almost all of them have very substantial competition. This attitude is, in fact, encompassed in the near footnote-like section entitled "Competition." That section sums it all up: success is determined with obsessively improving the company. Competition isn't what kills, it is failure to keep on improving.

https://www.cbinsights.com/research-unicorn-companies

There is the list of current Unicorns. I can't think of one of them that doesn't have very, very substantial competition or is a genuinely novel product. All of them ventured into highly competitive, well-worn fields and what set them apart was quality of service, ease of use, and responsivity. Very few of them made conceptual leaps in the underlying product - they mostly made leaps in lowering activity energy to use products or solving associated logistical problems.

Sorry Sam, I have to politely disagree with you on this one. Lord knows you are the one with the resume and authority on this, but I am a startup lawyer and work with clients on this stuff all day, so I am not totally unqualified. I do defer to your judgment, obviously, on companies that you want to fund, and your track record more than speaks for itself. However, what I want to know is if there isn't some disconnect between the companies you do fund and the attitude that is expressed in this post. I would love to hear your insights or opinions on whether you feel that I have this wrong, and if you think that the next generation of unicorns are going to be novel monopolies, or that maybe I am misreading the characteristics of current successful startups.

Re: Startup Playbook

#32

Post by rfrey » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 6:42 PM UTC

sama wrote: post #24

jMyles wrote: post #21

> Startups are the point in your life when tricks stop working. Awesome thesis, hidden in the middle of the text. In some ways, this is a great single sentence answer to the question, "What is a startup, really?"

http://www.amazon.com/Persecution-Art-Writing-Leo-Strauss/dp...

You're going to have me counting the words in the sentences.

Re: Startup Playbook

#33

Post by revorad » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 6:47 PM UTC

sama wrote: post #4

(This got published a little early because it got indexed. I'm still going through and fixing some typos and will maybe add a few other things.)

Can you please get the designer of this playbook and ycombinator.com to redesign HN too?

Re: Startup Playbook

#34

Post by gozo » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 6:49 PM UTC

If this is something that is expected to be around for awhile I recommend talking to an editor. Friends are good to check for overall content and typos, but they are too familiar with the subject to check how well you convey something and too nice to really tear through the text objectively.

Re: Startup Playbook

#35

Post by sharemywin » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 6:49 PM UTC

CountdownGraph wrote: post #31

I have a really hard time buying a lot of this about how novelty and monopoly are keys to a successful company. If you look at the really successful startups, especially unicorns, almost none of them are actually monopolies or new ideas. The vast, vast majority are old products done right, and almost all of them have very substantial competition. This attitude is, in fact, encompassed in the near footnote-like sectio…

look at Microsoft and apple both of their real winners were after the fact. Office and the ipod/iphone. Also, I think anything that makes money is a win. Not just unicorns. If YC wants export to the rest of the country it needs to shoot for more base hits. I think in SV people have already self selected to follow cray ideas. but the rest of the country if you want to get the best candidate show them something with the best odds of not failing.

Re: Startup Playbook

#36

Post by m_fayer » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 6:50 PM UTC

I wish there was a similar level and quality of resources for what I think are called lifestyle businesses. By that, I mean product-based businesses with at most a few million in revenue, a 5ish person team, a solid sustainable market position, and no desire to revolutionize any unicorns.

I know a lot of people attempting this and they mostly seem to be flying under the radar, or at least have nowhere near the cachet of a startup. They are often bootstrapped, frequently for lack of other options.

For those of us who don't want to be in the pressure cooker or are turned off by the hype machine, these businesses are a viable alternative route toward independence and possibly achieving a significant impact. The fact that they have become as attainable as they are is I think also something quite remarkable.

Re: Startup Playbook

#37

Post by gkoberger » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 6:51 PM UTC

m_fayer wrote: post #36

I wish there was a similar level and quality of resources for what I think are called lifestyle businesses. By that, I mean product-based businesses with at most a few million in revenue, a 5ish person team, a solid sustainable market position, and no desire to revolutionize any unicorns. I know a lot of people attempting this and they mostly seem to be flying under the radar, or at least have nowhere near the cachet…

Try Getting Real and Rework by 37 Signals. https://gettingreal.37signals.com/

Re: Startup Playbook

#38

Post by ska » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 6:52 PM UTC

m_fayer wrote: post #36

I wish there was a similar level and quality of resources for what I think are called lifestyle businesses. By that, I mean product-based businesses with at most a few million in revenue, a 5ish person team, a solid sustainable market position, and no desire to revolutionize any unicorns. I know a lot of people attempting this and they mostly seem to be flying under the radar, or at least have nowhere near the cachet…

   By that, I mean product-based businesses with at most a few million in revenue, a 5ish person team, a solid sustainable market position, and no desire to revolutionize any unicorns.

I believe this used to just be called "a small business". Not a terribly new idea, but being rediscovered perhaps by tech people?

Re: Startup Playbook

#39

Post by libertymcateer » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 6:53 PM UTC

sharemywin wrote: post #35

CountdownGraph wrote: post #31

I have a really hard time buying a lot of this about how novelty and monopoly are keys to a successful company. If you look at the really successful startups, especially unicorns, almost none of them are actually monopolies or new ideas. The vast, vast majority are old products done right, and almost all of them have very substantial competition. This attitude is, in fact, encompassed in the near footnote-like sectio…

look at Microsoft and apple both of their real winners were after the fact. Office and the ipod/iphone. Also, I think anything that makes money is a win. Not just unicorns. If YC wants export to the rest of the country it needs to shoot for more base hits. I think in SV people have already self selected to follow cray ideas. but the rest of the country if you want to get the best candidate show them something with th…

Office was not the first word processor, Mac OS was inspired almost wholesale from Xerox Parc, the iPod was absolutely not the first mp3 player, and the iPhone was absolutely not the first --iPhone-- edit: smartphone (what a freudian slip!). These are all perfect examples of my point: these were all examples of these products that due to their incrementally better and thoughtful design, which included ease of integration into larger digital ecosystems, compatibility with other products, availability and cost won out in the market. Not a single one of those, however, was a first in kind, nor was it a monopoly. What drove those all to success was the absolute obsession of their developers and designers with making products that were a joy to use and fit seamlessly into larger operating ecosystems.

Re: Startup Playbook

#40

Post by sethd » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 6:55 PM UTC

gkoberger wrote: post #27

jMyles wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, I don't think I know a single one of them. Who are they and how can I learn more about what they do and how they formulate such great content?

* Sam Altman – Y Combinator President * Paul Buchheit - YC Partner, Gmail founder * Erica Carpenter - Y Combinator * Brian Chesky - AirBnb * Adam D’Angelo – Quora, ex-CTO of FB * Drew Houston – Dropbox founder * Justin Kan – YC Partner, Twitch, Justin.tv, Socialcam * Matt Krisiloff – Y Combinator * Aaron Levie – Box founder * Gabriel Leydon – Machine Zone founder * Jessica Livingston – YC Founder * Dustin Moskovitz –…

"Gmail founder" sounds a little funny to me.

If I am employed as a developer in a company on a new product, am I then a founder of that product? It just seems like the word founder just keeps being used more liberally as time goes on.