Why is Sam's brother the one interviewing him?? I find it slightly cringy. What authority does he have / what has he done, that makes him a good candidate to interview Sam? Is this meant to help shine some light on Sam's brother and his startup?
How to Build the Future with Sam Altman
51–60 of 98 posts
Re: How to Build the Future with Sam Altman
#52I'm sure this will get downvoted into oblivion, but why should I or other engineers/entrepreneurs look at Sam Altman as a massive startup success story when his lone startup Loopt never really achieved product-market fit, and ended up in a firesale? Across 5 funding rounds, Crunchbase lists Loopt as having raised $39 million and then was acquired (acqui-hired?) for $43 million. He didn't create any multiples of value…
While we're at it, how about Mark Cuban? Did Broadcast.com ever work past a basic stage? Did it ever have huge, if any, positive revenues? It really sounds like he bought a domain name and fucked around a little with html and won big in the dotcom craze. A lot of "heroes" in this world are fairly fraudulent. Worse, some went from young tech luminaries to older VC sharks with questionable ethics like Mark Andreeson. I…
Re: How to Build the Future with Sam Altman
#53I'm sure this will get downvoted into oblivion, but why should I or other engineers/entrepreneurs look at Sam Altman as a massive startup success story when his lone startup Loopt never really achieved product-market fit, and ended up in a firesale? Across 5 funding rounds, Crunchbase lists Loopt as having raised $39 million and then was acquired (acqui-hired?) for $43 million. He didn't create any multiples of value…
I turned out to be a better investor than an entrepreneur (though somewhat to my surprise running YC is more about running a company than being an investor). I think I've learned a lot from working closely with entrepreneurs that run massively successful companies that's worth sharing. If you disagree, no one is making you watch this. You're free to hit the back button.
(I don't know if this is how you actually feel deep inside, but if it is, I wish you spoke of it so.)
Re: How to Build the Future with Sam Altman
#54"One of the only arbitrage opportunities left is time." - I like that, and definitely believe it. First time I have heard it also.
Re: How to Build the Future with Sam Altman
#55To be clear, I suggest all young adults follow Sam's advice on risk.
Re: How to Build the Future with Sam Altman
#56Re: How to Build the Future with Sam Altman
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
By top 10 YC startup standards, Paul Graham's Viaweb success isn't all that interesting either. But, of course: if the model they're building with YC works, this is the outcome you'd expect. YC wouldn't be very interesting if its outcomes were capped to Viaweb's and Loopt's.
Paul Graham started Y Combinator, which is a company. Paul Graham was a borderline founder of Reddit, as well.
Re: How to Build the Future with Sam Altman
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add another data point in support of Sam's comment, I think one can build a good understanding of entrepreneurship and how to increase the chances of success without having been a hugely successful founder. I joined VC four years ago because I wanted to learn more about early-stage startups before starting my own, and I ended up falling in love with the job. I've learned a ton about factors of success and failure…
I watch football. By watching football I have built a good understanding of football management and how to increase the chances of success without having been a hugely successful football manager. Maybe that's 50% of success of being a football manager. I can learn more than other football managers because I can watch lots of football games on Sky Sports. That's why many top premiership teams hire their managers by f…
I think it's actually the opposite: if there's a good founder/investor relationship, the investor is an extended part of the team, is sometimes on the field (helping close job candidates or doing customer intros), and is often trying to help from the side-lines. Not all founder/investor relationships are this good, but some are.
To use your analogy, the founders are football players, and investors are somewhere between "football fan" and "football coach", but probably a lot closer to coach than fan. It's true that neither coaches nor fans are actually on the field playing the game, but coaches have way more insider info. For example, they watch players practice and have a deeper understanding of what each player can and cannot do, they know which players might be nursing injuries, how to motivate different types of players, etc. That doesn't mean a great coach could be a great quarterback, but I think lots of players would agree that a great coach knows a lot about how to become a better football player despite not being a football player themselves. (And to extend the analogy, I think coaches are good at helping players improve despite the fact that some players might lie or make excuses or paint rosy pictures or whatever.)
Re: How to Build the Future with Sam Altman
#59I'm sure this will get downvoted into oblivion, but why should I or other engineers/entrepreneurs look at Sam Altman as a massive startup success story when his lone startup Loopt never really achieved product-market fit, and ended up in a firesale? Across 5 funding rounds, Crunchbase lists Loopt as having raised $39 million and then was acquired (acqui-hired?) for $43 million. He didn't create any multiples of value…
I turned out to be a better investor than an entrepreneur (though somewhat to my surprise running YC is more about running a company than being an investor). I think I've learned a lot from working closely with entrepreneurs that run massively successful companies that's worth sharing. If you disagree, no one is making you watch this. You're free to hit the back button.
Why would somebody want to only consume media they agree with?
Re: How to Build the Future with Sam Altman
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
By YC startup standards again, Reddit isn't a very successful company. The amount of early investment that went into it has certainly paid off, but monetization is a seriously hard problem for them.
Reddit's last round valued them at $500 million, and it is something like the 25th most visited site on the Internet. That's a successful company by any standard.
I think you're conflating "impressive" and "successful." I would say that based on the numbers you've given, Reddit is an impressive company (it's hard to get any company to that level of private investment and internet fame!), but it's not necessarily a successful company yet.
Being that Reddit's valuation is solely attributable to private investment and not revenue generation (so far), the only sound way to judge whether or not it is a financially successful company is based on its potential return to investors.
By the standards of most VCs in tech, a $500M exit is suboptimal, which will result in either a modest return or just getting their money back. This is not good for a firm's "batting average" when they're trying to beat the SPY with a ten year fund. They need to cover their losses (which, indutry-wide, represents approximately all of their investments), their staff and business continuity costs, their management and performance fees and still beat the market. Modest returns aren't helpful in that regard.
You also have to consider the likelihood that Reddit will transition into a mature business that can exist profitably on its own, without continually receiving significant infusions of cash. If it can't find a way to navigate out of "tech adolescence" it's not really a successful company. The last numbers I read indicated that Reddit has achieved an annual revenue of $8-10M, which is an annual return of >= 2%. Considering that the S&P's average annual return is about 7%, you could earn $10M on $500M by sticking it into an index fund and literally burning the other $25M you would have generated by doing nothing.