Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Toys?

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 211 posts

Re: Why Toys?

#51

Post by freehunter »

jacquesm wrote: post #35
schnevets wrote: post #23

I am constantly thinking about the question: What is the future tech entrepreneur's lemonade stand? It would have to be something typical and low-skill so a young entrepreneur can build it and learn the hard lessons about running a business, but it needs some special defense to avoid being out-innovated by an Amazon or Google. The Facebook example as a toy is perfect - the platform was able to thrive by being hyper-l…

> What is the future tech entrepreneur's lemonade stand? Likely Wordpress or Wix... as unfortunate as that is the more interesting question is what form the lemonade will take.

Many businesses were launched from Wordpress, and I know more than a few bespoke technology products where the MVP was Wordpress with a few plugins. I don't think you're too far off-base here.

Re: Why Toys?

#52

Post by brucephillips »

loeber wrote: post #44
turingcompeteme wrote: post #27

Standard Oil actually did start out as a toy. They provided oil to burn in lamps. At the time most people thought that was a somewhat silly gimmick and a fad that would quickly pass. Oil in general was seen as something neat but not essential for years. But just like facebook, many people soon came around to the idea and it took over the world. Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. covers this all in incredible…

This is plainly wrong. Rockefeller started dealing in oil because the unit economics were excellent, and because he recognized that no dominant players had emerged in the market yet, opening it up to vertical & horizontal integration (both of which he executed flawlessly). Furthermore, asserting that indoor lighting was a toy -- in an age where other light sources were dim, prohibitively expensive, or excessively smo…

I don't see how desirable unit economics refutes GP's claim that the initial market was lamp oil.

Re: Why Toys?

#53

Post by loorinm »

brucephillips wrote: post #48
loorinm wrote: post #39

Cute title but this is actually just an extension of “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer”. Facebook had TIME to be a toy because Mark Zuckerberg had a rich family, and plenty of skills to get a job if it didn’t work out. “Making a toy” is only possible with the resources of money and time. People who need to make money need to focus earlier on making money, which stunts growth in the long run. This is true…

As much as I disagree with his thesis here, the entire point of it is that YC wants to and does fund toy companies. So they're trying to solve the exact problem you're railing against.

So funding toy companies (IE Mark Zuckerberg and other well-off white men) is solving the problem of only funding Mark Zuckerberg and other well-off white men?

Re: Why Toys?

#54

Post by encoderer »

loorinm wrote: post #53
brucephillips wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I disagree with his thesis here, the entire point of it is that YC wants to and does fund toy companies. So they're trying to solve the exact problem you're railing against.

So funding toy companies (IE Mark Zuckerberg and other well-off white men) is solving the problem of only funding Mark Zuckerberg and other well-off white men?

So nothing is worthwhile if it doesn’t also solve inequality?

Tall order.

Re: Why Toys?

#55

Post by adpirz »

brucephillips wrote: post #48
loorinm wrote: post #39

Cute title but this is actually just an extension of “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer”. Facebook had TIME to be a toy because Mark Zuckerberg had a rich family, and plenty of skills to get a job if it didn’t work out. “Making a toy” is only possible with the resources of money and time. People who need to make money need to focus earlier on making money, which stunts growth in the long run. This is true…

As much as I disagree with his thesis here, the entire point of it is that YC wants to and does fund toy companies. So they're trying to solve the exact problem you're railing against.

I think OP has a point. MZ was comfortable enough leaving school for a semester, and that too after being put on academic probation for violating serious codes of ethics. Despite all that, he still managed a $500k seed investment from Peter Thiel. Students who grow up in poverty and put the work in to get into college, let alone a prestigious one like Harvard, are usually fighting to do everything right just to make it through, and many don't because they can't make financial commitments (and yes, despite tons of scholarship money) or personal commitments with family.

People like Mark always had the security of their family's relative wealth and security on top of their general status in society. That's not a luxury afforded to most, and certainly not those from low-income backgrounds.

Re: Why Toys?

#56

Post by csallen »

loorinm wrote: post #53
brucephillips wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I disagree with his thesis here, the entire point of it is that YC wants to and does fund toy companies. So they're trying to solve the exact problem you're railing against.

So funding toy companies (IE Mark Zuckerberg and other well-off white men) is solving the problem of only funding Mark Zuckerberg and other well-off white men?

I'm black, I did YC. I know quite a few women and non-white men who've gone through YC, too. I think if you made your point (which is an important one!) with less snark and hyperbole, it would be more effective.

Re: Why Toys?

#57

Post by loorinm »

encoderer wrote: post #54
loorinm wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So funding toy companies (IE Mark Zuckerberg and other well-off white men) is solving the problem of only funding Mark Zuckerberg and other well-off white men?

So nothing is worthwhile if it doesn’t also solve inequality? Tall order.

I am directly responding to above person’s claim that this practice by YC is somehow solving the very problem it is creating.

At no point did I claim that everything has to solve inequality.

Re: Why Toys?

#58

Post by fiatjaf »

loorinm wrote: post #39

Cute title but this is actually just an extension of “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer”. Facebook had TIME to be a toy because Mark Zuckerberg had a rich family, and plenty of skills to get a job if it didn’t work out. “Making a toy” is only possible with the resources of money and time. People who need to make money need to focus earlier on making money, which stunts growth in the long run. This is true…

What you're saying is partly true, but what do you think YC should do?

Re: Why Toys?

#59

Post by philwelch »

TylerE wrote: post #34
philwelch wrote: post #4

> This trend does not fit with history either. Standard Oil, US Steel, and Boeing were all iconically huge companies that were built as businesses. None of them went through a phase where they looked like toys. This is largely because "inventing a new thing" and "building a massive business from that invention" are more closely linked now than they have been, historically. Standard Oil and US Steel postdated the inve…

> Standard Oil and US Steel postdated the invention of steel and steam engines by centuries. The first component of what was to become US Steel opened in 1857, only 2 years after the invention of the Bessemer process that made it practical to produce steel in industrial quantities.

I mean, of course once you invent serious industrial scale processes, you can set up a serious business. But the lag time between "invention of steel" and "invention of the Bessemer process" was a lot bigger than the lag time between "invention of Apple I" and "invention of Apple II".

Re: Why Toys?

#60

Post by Blackthorn »

turingcompeteme wrote: post #27

Standard Oil actually did start out as a toy. They provided oil to burn in lamps. At the time most people thought that was a somewhat silly gimmick and a fad that would quickly pass. Oil in general was seen as something neat but not essential for years. But just like facebook, many people soon came around to the idea and it took over the world. Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. covers this all in incredible…

This is a bit skimpy on the details. I highly recommend every American adult to read The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power. It will change the way you think about the world. It also shows how Rockefeller was able to pivot his business from kerosene lamps, which were on the way to obsolescence, to fuel.
Post reply on HN