21–30 of 161 posts
Comparisons to Google are worthless, primarily for 2 reasons: 1. Every logical mind (even within Google) in 1999 would have seen that Google was heading for failure - there was no money in search. They got lucky in finding one -adwords - that worked. 2. Had the timing of their discovery been off, or had the dot-com bubble busted a few months earlier, they would have died. In saying that, they are useless as a measure…
So many of these Web 2.0 startups seem to want to grab a piece of the pie by diverting traffic rather than growing the pie by offering something fundamentally useful.
"Any really good new idea will seem bad to most people." This is a very true statement. The danger that I've seen is so often people think, "My idea seems bad to most people, ergo it must be good!" How do you separate the seemingly bad from the actual bad? Figure _that_ out, and you'll make something of yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From your previous letter: "We rejected a lot of proposals [...] because the project seemed too big to start on only three months of funding." All your non-defunct fundees are still "building", but that's not the same as accepting groups you know are going to take two years and a lot more funding right at the outset. As for caring about the founders/investing in people instead of ideas, that doesn't hold up for sever…
That sentence isn't in the most recent emails. I took it out precisely because it's no longer true. It was in the rejection email we sent the first summer, and as often happens with text you rarely look at, it stayed around after it had become false. And by building, I meant two years to launch. There's a startup we funded two years ago that's launching in late spring or early summer.
It's kind of amusing the rejectees not only got a form letter, but a recycled one, which wasn't even accurate!
This essay doesn't quite sit right for me. My skeptical side constructs the message "invest 400k in YCombinator startups and you will have a piece of the next Google." I think I see that because I assume that PG is not being hypocritical; ie. VC's should make bold investments -> YCombinator must already be making bold investments. I am not under the impression that this message is intentional, it just seems that the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sentence isn't in the most recent emails. I took it out precisely because it's no longer true. It was in the rejection email we sent the first summer, and as often happens with text you rarely look at, it stayed around after it had become false. And by building, I meant two years to launch. There's a startup we funded two years ago that's launching in late spring or early summer.
It still doesn't make sense. You say two years ago you had this max-timeframe criteria; but there's a startup you funded two years ago that has yet to launch. Well, you can't use them as an example of your foresight if they accidentally slipped through your filter, or if they accidentally ended up taking much longer than expected. Fo' shizzle, G. It's kind of amusing the rejectees not only got a form letter, but a re…
The first batch was in the summer of 2005.
"the kind of founders who have the balls to turn down a big offer also tend to be very successful" Or they tend to fail spectacularly. The more risk you are willing to take the more you will tend to go towards the extremes: One extreme is huge succes, the other is bankruptcy.
People who go all in are not always just confident, and bold, but also might know what they're doing as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It still doesn't make sense. You say two years ago you had this max-timeframe criteria; but there's a startup you funded two years ago that has yet to launch. Well, you can't use them as an example of your foresight if they accidentally slipped through your filter, or if they accidentally ended up taking much longer than expected. Fo' shizzle, G. It's kind of amusing the rejectees not only got a form letter, but a re…
You say two years ago you had this max-timeframe criteria The first batch was in the summer of 2005.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Traditional angel groups have so far been a complete disappointment. They're more conservative than VCs. But I would not be surprised if a new form of angel group starts to emerge. There are a couple syndicates of ex-Googlers that look very promising. They have lots of money, and they were all smart enough to get hired as early employees at Google.
Do you have links or other info on these guys that you're able/inclined to share?
"Any really good new idea will seem bad to most people." This is a very true statement. The danger that I've seen is so often people think, "My idea seems bad to most people, ergo it must be good!" How do you separate the seemingly bad from the actual bad? Figure _that_ out, and you'll make something of yourself.
Try it and find out.