Live data from Hacker News

Why There Aren't More Googles

paulgraham.com

91–100 of 161 posts

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles

#91
We recognized this gap in the capital for young companies a while ago when we started Tandem Entrepreneurs and I could go on about this in great detail. However I will just highlight that the gap isn't just with financial capital, it is with human capital too. Beyond the founders, there are very few who would join these startups as employees? Why wouldn't a talent entrepreneur not just do his own? The basic equation of go raise some money and then go hire people breaks down.

Moving to risk, they key driver here is that investors must take themselves out of the equation when investing.The company must make sense even if they are not involved. This makes them cautious when things are still iffy. Tandem address this problem through a co-entrepreneurship model. We invest both human and financial capital. The human capital is to find our way to clarity together. This gives a greater comfort in taking risk. We feel much more like an entrepreneur.

Of course the Tandem model is not very scalable; we can’t even do the 30-40 that YC will do. We do a handful a year and only where we know our human capital will bring an edge.

I don’t think the VC’s have much incentive to do a co-entrepreneurship model, when they can make nice salaries doing what they do. It is obvious in hindsite that the short haul model of Southwest Airlines was a good business but it was a long time before the incumbent airlines paid it heed. I wouldn;t hold my breath for the VCs to change.

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles

#92
post #84
post #2

The startups who turn down acquisition offer do better thing might have a bit of reporting bias. ie. the ones that fail, we never think about. Except of course, there was a big famous example -- Friendster. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/business/yourmoney/15frien...

Holding off on early acquisition is a necessary but by no means sufficient condition of massive success. That is, refusing early offers doesn't guarantee you'll be the next Google, but accepting one guarantees you won't.

True. Causality vs Correlation. I would imagine that many if not most big successes had an acquisition offer along the way but could it be that becoming a google, apple, microsoft or oracle is much more a function of good strategy, good execution, good markets, good timing and good luck than a function of an entrepreneur walking away from an acquisition offer?

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles

#93
post #82
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google will be obsolete once the semantic web arrives ;) I remember being pretty skeptical of Google. Better search seemed like a nice idea, but it wasn't clear how they were going to compete with the established players who all had more money, more users, more engineers, more features, etc. Also, Google wasn't the only company trying to build a better search engine. It seemed like there was a new one every month.

Hate to break it to you, but the semantic web is a fairly tale, and is not arriving anytime soon.

He didn't tell it's coming soon, did he

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles

#94
I come from another perspective, I have lost absolutely all faith in investors period.

In the early nineties (during a recession in the UK) I started my passion and dream of building a design, manufacturing and distribution company. It was one hell of a chunk to bit off. Imagine 2 years design period, manufacturing cycle is a min of 6 months from ordering components to final assembly, then you have to spend on marketing and get the product into the shops then wait 30 days from the end of month (and if they don't sell you'd be hard pushed to get the cash). So your looking at a 3 year cycle between initial investment, before you make your first dime (and a total investment of at least 200k). So you need rather large pockets or elephant sized balls. I had neither. I had no money when I started whatsoever, however I did succeed (and became the number 1 company in my sector within 5 years) despite external funders rather than because of them. How?

What turns me off from funders now is the experiences I had in trying to raise capital with this venture. The sheer amount of effort and time that went into funding proposals, business plans, meetings with false promises that actually set me back and at one point nearly killed the project before it started. The funders that I had available to me were business 'professionals' working for charities who would make small loans and give small grants of between 2k and 10k. The 10k ones were the worst. I wont go into all the disappointments in detail but there was enough of them for me to totally loose all faith in taking such chances again.

I did get 20K GBP together (40KUSD) in the end mostly by extortion from a very good bank manager who started with a small loan 1k then to 10k and because of all the nightmares along the journey ended up having to keep fueling me to 20K or risk the 10K. It paid off for both of us, I turned into one of his top business accounts and he got kudos of being the man who had the balls to back this nutter (me),

I want to give you 2 examples that give the essence of 2 different strategies for dealing with funding problems: 1) I was at a point where we had launched the first product, we had some first orders, but needed more money to buy more components before we could build them (by this time there was me and 1 other guy who risked everything to join me (another nutter)). I had an option to take a soft loan from a government backed charity who had the responsibility of distributing 400K to startups in an effort to encourage entrepreneurial spirit in the mids of recession. There is no doubt I had the best proposal on the table that they had seen, I was told in confidence that it was a done deal and just a matter of time before it came through. It didn't and shortly after the organization went bust giving precisely nothing to startups. That left me unable to pay the employe for 3 months (who carried on working), and instead of paying for components I found a supplier who would take a chance on me and give me a 2K credit limit, we survived just and the supplier became one of our biggest throughout the business regularly taking cheques off me for 20K a month.

2) at the launch of the second product there was a crisis where one component was no good (manufacture fuckup), we had to reorder with a lead time of min 2 months even if we flew them in. This meant a 3 month delay with nothing for the 4 staff to do and nothing to sell This was all 3 months off but on the cards and no conceivable way round it. Instead I quickly designed (4 weeks) a single stand a lone feature and managed to get it into the shops within 2 months, (mostly using credit again and giving away the first 50 across the country to the shops) then blanket adverting in the best magazines. It worked and we made more money out of this venture than I could have imagined, like I was 50K up a few months later.

Moral of the story. If you can bootstrap it, you will be amazed at what you can achieve with foresight, luck and a little confidence shared by yourself and those that take a risk on you.

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles

#95

I come from another perspective, I have lost absolutely all faith in investors period. In the early nineties (during a recession in the UK) I started my passion and dream of building a design, manufacturing and distribution company. It was one hell of a chunk to bit off. Imagine 2 years design period, manufacturing cycle is a min of 6 months from ordering components to final assembly, then you have to spend on market…

What were you selling?

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles

#96
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holding off on early acquisition is a necessary but by no means sufficient condition of massive success. That is, refusing early offers doesn't guarantee you'll be the next Google, but accepting one guarantees you won't.

True. Causality vs Correlation. I would imagine that many if not most big successes had an acquisition offer along the way but could it be that becoming a google, apple, microsoft or oracle is much more a function of good strategy, good execution, good markets, good timing and good luck than a function of an entrepreneur walking away from an acquisition offer?

This is true. However, I think the point being made here is that while you need strategy, execution, timing, all of the things you just listed above (and more), even if you have all of these things, you still can't become "a Google" if you don't resist early offers.

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles

#97
post #8

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?

You should check out Tandem Entrepreneurs. We are not an angel group but co-entrepreneurs. Have done a couple of YC companies.

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles

#99
post #95

I come from another perspective, I have lost absolutely all faith in investors period. In the early nineties (during a recession in the UK) I started my passion and dream of building a design, manufacturing and distribution company. It was one hell of a chunk to bit off. Imagine 2 years design period, manufacturing cycle is a min of 6 months from ordering components to final assembly, then you have to spend on market…

What were you selling?

http://startupcrunch.org/sponsors/intimidation.php

Re: Why There Aren't More Googles

#100
post #19
post #17

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN