Live data from Hacker News

YC Annual Letter 2017

blog.samaltman.com

101–110 of 165 posts

Re: YC Annual Letter 2017

#101
Hey Sam,

Here's a question for you (or other YC folks) on YC recommendations.

Give that I'm planning to apply for the next cycle, would it benefit me to ask for recommendations from 7 or 8 folks who I've worked with in the past and have strong relationships with?

It's not totally clear to me whether it would be kosher to ask for those or if it's something you'd rather that people do spontaneously. I'm also wondering if 7 or 8 is too many given how little time I know you have to spend on each applicant. Thanks!

Re: YC Annual Letter 2017

#102

> 4) Does this company have a clear and important mission? > Without this, I usually get bored. More importantly, companies that don’t have this usually have a hard time recruiting enough great people to work with them, and thus struggle to become very large. I find this one interesting. When Google started, there were many incumbent search engines. Their mission was to provide better results than what existed, i.e.…

Perhaps the issue is you not understanding the companies' missions. What you're describing is products, which represent a manifestation of one piece of the mission, and are a building block that helps construct a world in which the mission is possible. Google, for example, is (and was) on a mission to do much more than build a really sweet search engine. Their goal from the beginning has been (though now refined): "t…

I think you may be mixing up the state of the company and/or its mission at the time of founding/early investment with their state at the present time.

> Uber isn't about "getting privileged people with smart phones and disposable income a sexy/cool ride home from the bar;" its mission statement is, "make transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere, for everyone."

I don't think that was from the get go.

> It seems you are viewing these products in a very negative light, and in doing so you're missing the forest for the trees. I would guess that all of the companies above will be wildly successful, and will have a wide range of products, all dedicated to achieving their stated mission. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Yes and no. I most certainly don't view Google in a negative light. I'll admit I view Facebook as largely existing to promote rampant consumerism. Snapchat...don't even know where to begin.

Nonetheless - the point of my comment, and why I found sama's statement interesting - was the assertion that lacking a large, important mission statement (or big hairy audacious goal, if you will) is an impediment to growth (or ability to "become very large".) When you look at the winners - they usually do have a lofty, all encompassing mission statement - but it would seem not to have been that way at inception. If anything, I thought the preaching in the startup world has been about finding a niche, an angle someone hasn't seen, make something people want...and then expand from there.

A final thought - even Y Combinator itself seems an example of this (at least in my eyes.) What started out as a fund/startup incubator is now truly trying to tackle and invest in very audacious things (such as Universal Health Care.) It's able to do that now that it has become a successful, large brand in and of itself.

Re: YC Annual Letter 2017

#103

> 4) Does this company have a clear and important mission? > Without this, I usually get bored. More importantly, companies that don’t have this usually have a hard time recruiting enough great people to work with them, and thus struggle to become very large. I find this one interesting. When Google started, there were many incumbent search engines. Their mission was to provide better results than what existed, i.e.…

Usually the product comes before the mission. Google's product was a search engine with better results than existed, but their mission was "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". That mission statement was a key part in them getting key hires. Uber's mission is "Transportation as reliable as running water." Facebook's mission is "Make the world more open and transparent."…

If these were their real missions most of these companies they would be doing things very differently. Facebook transparent? Not a chance. Uber reliable? Not with surge pricing etc

Re: YC Annual Letter 2017

#104
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny you say this—the first thing I did, even before reading the article, was search for "Thiel." It's going to be hard for me to take this sort of thing seriously, this telegraphing of benevolence which is so central to YC's branding, until they address the fact that one of their "partners" is such an obviously destructive force within society. They don't even have to do anything but say goodbye, and they won'…

Actually, the fact that they have not bowed to the pressure to "disavow" Peter Thiel merely for his political views in one of the things that makes me think highly of YC.

You must really love Hugo Boss and IBM as well. It's so great that they were able to ignore politics when they were making uniforms and mainframes for nazis.

Re: YC Annual Letter 2017

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twenty years or so ago, only Microsoft would have been on that list. It was being hit with lawsuits and Apple was on the other side because it wasn't on the list. The landscape changed and DEC and SUN are gone and Yahoo (hence the 'or so') and IBM don't have the relevance that they once did. What happened is that the landscape shifted out from under many of the incumbents...from hardware to software. The one survivor…

AFGAM is more of a concern if the world is a finite pie and less so if it isn't The infinite pie theory is for all practical purposes impossible. Growing pie theory works on beyond lifetime scale, but not for decade level scale. So it does matter because a startup can't last for two decades to try and gain market share against an incumbent.

I don't disagree. But money is a construct and not tied to gold or something similar, so the boundary of the pie is not fixed and what it is made of is not fixed either.

Anyway, Amazon is still the underdog going up against Walmart which twenty years on has really good technical chops and turns over a lot more goods and has phenomenally good logistics...think about who is going to benefit more from autonymous trucks. While it has the overhead of a vehicle fleet it is not at the mercy of UPS and Fedex and for a lot of goods, ordering online and picking up at the local Walmart is about as good as door to door shipping.

Anyway, in some ways Netflix is more likely to be crushed by Walmart than Amazon...and Disney is even more likely than either of them. As internet purchases and bandwidth increasingly become commodities, companies with long horizons become more formidable particularly in markets that matter...the players in the mobile market are Deutsch Telecom and ATT not plucky entrepreneurs. The big car makers are moving on self-driving cars and they already have down the really hard part of making cars...software can be copied.

Re: YC Annual Letter 2017

#107
post #99

Aside from a throwaway line about a possible "macroeconomic meltdown", there seems to be little attention paid to big signs of an overall negative trend in tech jobs: * "Bay Area: Tech job growth has rapidly decelerated" (from here: http://www.siliconvalley.com/2017/02/10/tech-job-growth-slow... ) * "Tech Jobs Took a Big Hit Last Year" (from here: http://fortune.com/2017/02/16/tech-jobs-layoffs-microsoft-in... ) The…

Maybe SF is just full? At some point that city will no longer be able to support and endless parade of Python developers in skinny jeans. Also, decelerated job growth is still job growth. 3.5% growth doubles in 20 years. Not exactly panic time.

Re: YC Annual Letter 2017

#108
post #4

"Hacker News has 3.4 million users per month and 350,000 users per day, with 4 million pageviews a day. There are just under 1 million registered accounts, with several hundred added each day. Users post around 1,000 articles and 6,000 comments to the site per day." First time I have seen those numbers, very impressive. I thought there were a lot less users.

Pretty impressive that HN has mostly maintained the level of quality it set out to, especially with 350,000 users per day. I'm always relieved that there is a place on the Internet I can go where 90% of the comments on the page aren't "me too thanks".

Moderation does a dang good job

Re: YC Annual Letter 2017

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually the product comes before the mission. Google's product was a search engine with better results than existed, but their mission was "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". That mission statement was a key part in them getting key hires. Uber's mission is "Transportation as reliable as running water." Facebook's mission is "Make the world more open and transparent."…

If these were their real missions most of these companies they would be doing things very differently. Facebook transparent? Not a chance. Uber reliable? Not with surge pricing etc

The companies as they are today may not be achieving their mission - that doesn't mean that they won't in the future.

Facebook has succeeded in making the world a more open and transparent place - people have the ability to share information that matters to them and have people around the world find out about it. There are fewer places around the world for those in power to hide information away now. That's different to whether Facebook as a company is transparent.

Uber likewise may or may not be reliable now - surge pricing only ever increases the price of an Uber to the same as the price as a black cab where I live, but it's pretty clear that Uber's ambitions of self driving cars do not include surge pricing.

Re: YC Annual Letter 2017

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually the product comes before the mission. Google's product was a search engine with better results than existed, but their mission was "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". That mission statement was a key part in them getting key hires. Uber's mission is "Transportation as reliable as running water." Facebook's mission is "Make the world more open and transparent."…

If these were their real missions most of these companies they would be doing things very differently. Facebook transparent? Not a chance. Uber reliable? Not with surge pricing etc

So, there's this weird effect where basically every major company has a gigantic fundamental hypocrisy in their mission statement:

Google's is "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful", and yet - if you leak anything about them as an employee, you are insta-fired. If you try to figure out any sense of organization about their product portfolio, good luck. If you try to scrape any of their results or content, you will be banned quite quickly.

Facebook's is "make the world a more open & transparent place", and yet they have done more than any company since AOL to turn the web into a series of walled gardens. Plus Mark Zuckerburg bought the 4 houses adjacent to his so that neighbors couldn't look onto his property, and walks around with a 24/7 security team.

Uber's is "make transportation as reliable as running water", but their goal is for people to give up their own cars - which they can use any time, any where, for zero marginal cost - to be at the mercy of Uber's service.

Palantir's is "Palantir Technologies is a mission-driven company, and a core component of that mission is protecting our fundamental rights to privacy and civil liberties", and they sell to the CIA so they can spy on you.

At the same time, these companies also do many things that actually are in accord with their mission statements.

I think that you can reconcile this by realizing that the fundamental imperative for every company is continued existence. Those who fail at this are replaced by those who succeed. The mission statement is a tool to ensure continued existence, because it serves to align & recruit employees with similar values, without which there would be no organization. But when there are other imperatives that are necessary for the company's continued existence, even when they contradict the mission statement, the company's existence takes priority. Hence Google is very strict about their proprietary information, even though their mission is to make all information universally accessible; Facebook wants all content on Facebook, even though they claim to be about making everything open & transparent; Uber wants to make transportation reliable & easy, as long as it's on Uber; and Palantir wants to protect civil liberties only so long as it involves buying Palantir software.

Post reply on HN