If a startup insists that it will play by existing rules, it usually does not stand much of a chance, even though there are a few notable exceptions. So, the way to go about things, is to do something that clearly breaks the rules, but that is also virtually impossible to shut down. Something like Napster well done. Young people should even be more willing to do that. Furthermore, there are 200+ countries, most of which are powerless to do anything at all. If nobody is going to be pissed off with your startup, it will probably not be a home run.
A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013)
11–15 of 15 posts
Re: A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013)
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm glad you bring this up. That's according to Paul Graham, and I respectfully (and strongly) disagree with that definition; nor do i believe it to be the hacker news definition, as that is subject to the collective opinion despite whatever official stances may be taken. But I recognize that ycombinator is certainly focused on that type of startup, and that they obviously have influence on HN. But it is silly, and u…
> But it is silly, and unhealthy, to solely focus on this narrow definition So what defines this "startup" thing? How "startup" is different from a "small company"? Because, you know, not everyone opening a business needs to be "startup", and that's OK.
Quite often 'small companies' hit a vein that suddenly causes them to scale beyond their wildest dreams (I know this happens, because it happened to me).
Paul is super smart and wildly successful (as is YC) but he doesn't have a monopoly on what certain words in the English language mean. Defining a start-up in such a way that it benefits the YC narrative should be seen as a marketing ploy rather than a statement of fact or an extremely insightful realization.
It's not as if the word 'start-up' originated with Ycombinator, or with Paul Graham.
By other definitions a start-up is a company that is more potential than realization of that potential, an idea packaged in a company that might one day be successful or it might not.
The success element is often still up for grabs long before a start-up fits the PG description of what a start-up is. It's a useful definition within a certain context but don't be surprised if outside of the 'YC bubble' (or more properly the SV bubble) the word has subtly or even widely different interpretations that are just as valid.
I note this trend to creative redefinition or claiming ownership of terms a lot with successful SV entities. It's a 'partial reality distortion field' and I'm sure it is useful to them otherwise it wouldn't be such an often repeating pattern but you should be aware of the fact that the world is a lot bigger than that.
Re: A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013)
#13I still believe that for recent graduates looking to begin their career, there is no better option than to join an early-stage startup. Admittedly, it's like buying a lottery ticket, but if you win you can win very big and give your career a massive boost. On the other hand, if you lose you have still gained valuable career experience equal to or greater than what you could have gained at "GiantCorp". More importantl…
Why is the career experience more valuable than that you'd get at a big company?
If we're taking about developers here, then the experience a recent graduate needs is how to become a better, more capable developer.
In a big company, they'll have multiple senior colleagues, established processes, numerous large and varied codebases to study, and a large body of institutional experience to learn from.
In a startup, they'll have what? A frazzled technical founder with little more experience than them and no time for them, a few equally inexperienced colleagues, and a crummy Rails codebase.
Re: A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013)
#14As controversial as his points are, I feel like Michael O. Church really nails this hypothesis. Startup CEOs are not CEOs in any meaningful sense. Startup CEOs are our equivalent of what division vice-presidents were in the '50s and '60s. They're executives with a certain level of autonomy, to be sure, but they're hardly the independent mavericks that the rhetoric around startups would have you believe. Just like VPs…
I find this analysis pretty baffling and wildly differing from my own experience. In my experience, startup CEOs are exactly what CEOs usually are -- not totally independent, but beholden to investors/shareholders who want to see their money grow.
I've never heard of a company so tightly managed by its VCs that you could liken them to upper management. Sure, they might make some final decisions, but most VCs just don't have time to scrutinize their portfolio companies that closely.
Re: A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013)
#15I still believe that for recent graduates looking to begin their career, there is no better option than to join an early-stage startup. Admittedly, it's like buying a lottery ticket, but if you win you can win very big and give your career a massive boost. On the other hand, if you lose you have still gained valuable career experience equal to or greater than what you could have gained at "GiantCorp". More importantl…
Why is the career experience more valuable than that you'd get at a big company? If we're taking about developers here, then the experience a recent graduate needs is how to become a better, more capable developer. In a big company, they'll have multiple senior colleagues, established processes, numerous large and varied codebases to study, and a large body of institutional experience to learn from. In a startup, the…
You're absolutely correct, but the main benefit of working in a startup, from my personal experience, is you have your hands in the product from end-to-end, and have to wear many hats in the process of getting the product to market, and probably even have discussions and input on both design and business decisions going into the product.
You will probably not get significantly better at process and architecture design in a startup, but you will learn how to get the damn thing to work no matter what, at every stage of the process, instead of being responsible for one little feature here and there and working on tech that is likely 5-10 years old and in maintenance, bug-fixing mode.
I think working in both environments is valuable, as you probably won't see the value of unit testing, code reviews, continuous integration, and senior mentors in a startup environment, but being able to see the entire lifecycle gives you a perspective that other programmers that stay with big companies aren't as likely to see as well.
Also, I've worked in corporate environments with much worse development practices than startups, as well, mainly companies where software is not their main business. It goes both ways.