I found the "things you've hacked" question very interesting. My answer to it was something that is not actually "legal" so i was a little wary of putting it, but it puts noone in real danger and was an example of what was basically my first endeavor into embedded programming and RFID. I hope the YC crew saw it as something fun and interesting and not criminal lol but it any case I found it relevant to the topic and really enjoyed the question
What We Look for in Founders
131–140 of 188 posts
Re: What We Look for in Founders
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were Woz and Jobs "friends"? Don't Page and Brin claim explicitly they weren't? It seems more like the shared purpose brought those pairs closer together than where they started or where they would have ended up had they never worked together. That example of Viaweb helps clarify the distinction I'm thinking of. You guys were friends and so worked together despite differing convictions. But what of people who share a…
Were Woz and Jobs "friends"? I believe the answer to that is "absolutely". They certainly weren't in it for the money at first. Woz had to be very explicitly convinced to leave his nice job at H-P even after they had built the first Apple PC. If you insist that their friendship was somehow bogus because real friendships do not involve "shared purpose", I'm not sure I have any friends, by your weird definition. My hig…
I'm pushing back on how friendships likely develop during a startup effort and how that's different from existing friendships that lead to a startup. Jobs and Woz, based on FaW, seem to fall more into the former category. Brin and Page too. By contrast, Gates and Allen, as childhood friends, seem to better fit pg's model. I'm not sure where you got that last bit from what I said.
I'm working with some great folks now and we simply started by trying to build something. We're still in that mindset. We didn't start out as friends but after eight months, we are. There's the pressure to get stuff done because we don't want to let each other down. We laugh more than we disagree. It feels like the friendships and the startup are growing together. I have a hard time thinking that the team could be flawed because we didn't start out knowing each other well.
Re: What We Look for in Founders
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider that perhaps your accountant has a different perspective. Accountants don't get involved until the company makes enough money to need an accountant. So his perspective, which he may not realize, may be "Given that a company succeeds, it's better to have been started by a single person." PG has a different perspective. He's less concerned with questions which assume a company has succeeded; he's more concerne…
Accountants don't get involved until the company makes enough money to need an accountant. Actually, here in Croatia every form of company is obliged by law to have a licensed accountant (working for them or contract). You can't do your own paperwork - and TBH I wouldn't want to, it is too much liability if something goes wrong when filing papers.
it is too much liability if something goes wrong when filing papers.
Interesting. In the countries I know of, the company directors are responsible (and liable) for the accounts being correct, not the accountants.
Re: What We Look for in Founders
#134I'm currently the only founder for my startup and have a CS/Engineering background. I find that almost everybody I talk to seem to think its crazy or impossible for a single person startup to succeed. I wonder what the whole deal is about: - is it because they feel its too much work for one person? - they assume that one person cannot be motivated/determined enough to make a startup successful? - or is it just based…
Just search "single founder".
There were tons of threads on that.
Re: What We Look for in Founders
#135It is pretty hard to change who you are at the core. But the thing about it is that you have your own way of succeeding. You see at some point in life, you more than likely have succeeded. Instead of determination, you have passion. Instead of flexibility, you are a perfectionist. Instead of imagination, you can communicate well. Instead of being naughty, you are efficient. Instead of a partner, you are well connecte…
[deleted]
Re: What We Look for in Founders
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is my humble belief that you should care what you succeed at I know how you feel, but if that empirically produces a lower probability of success then what can you do?
I'd rather be moderately successful doing something that matters than very successful selling sugared water.
If you become successful at , you can leverage that to pursue . One example that comes to mind is Andrew Mason's Groupon talk at Startup School. Before Groupon, the Groupon guys ran "The Point", which tried to organize people to solve societal problems, including such ambitious, world changing ideas like building a climate dome over Chicago to avoid the brutal winters there. Obviously, the climate dome was never built, and "The Point" pivoted into Groupon. Although I don't think Andrew Mason has enough leverage/money/etc. to build that climate dome, he's certainly a lot closer today with Groupon's success than he was previously.
Re: What We Look for in Founders
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose of a cofounder is not to help alleviate load. It is to have someone tell you no, that your idea/implementation/justification sucks. They question your moves and make you justify them. Having a cofounder keeps you in check and keeps you from straying too far off the successful path.
This can be done by friends/relatives who are interested in supporting you without having the technical skills or free time to actually be co-founders with you. AFAIK, PG's argument is that it's a lot of stress doing a startup on your own.
> This can be done by friends/relatives who are interested in supporting you without having the technical skills or free time to actually be co-founders with you.
Sure, but it is much more effective when someone is in the venture with you, and their success is tied to yours. Your friends and family are much more likely to just say "yeah, that's a good idea". No risk on their part.
Re: What We Look for in Founders
#138I bet 80% of people reading that list are thinking: This describes me perfectly.
There may be a "selection bias" here with so many of us likely wanting to start a company.
This didn't used to describe me. I was quite happy being Mr. Fortune 500. The 5 years or so back, I went after one startup, then another, then I just applied to YC. I must have some kind of flexibility, determination, etc. to have gotten this far. Time will tell how much of the qualities described I have.
Re: What We Look for in Founders
#139It is pretty hard to change who you are at the core. But the thing about it is that you have your own way of succeeding. You see at some point in life, you more than likely have succeeded. Instead of determination, you have passion. Instead of flexibility, you are a perfectionist. Instead of imagination, you can communicate well. Instead of being naughty, you are efficient. Instead of a partner, you are well connecte…
"So instead of spending two years building a friendship to apply to yc, just go build the business. Inevitably, someone will want to join you when it is finished built."
I just connected with an old friend who saw something I just built and wants to join in. If you build something that's cool, people will indeed want to join in.
Re: What We Look for in Founders
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm also surprised that none of these points mention marketing - an ability to sell something seems vital in getting a startup going. I agree. One of the best assets for a good founder with tech-skills is a business/marketing founder. She can keep the ball rolling on the business things that would halt or slow software development, and during development she can be out discussing the product with potential customer…
You probably don't want to do that. A new relationship is a green sprig which must be carefully tended, not an oak tree capable of bearing heavy load.
I didn't mean to jump into a startup with someone that you've only been in a relationship with for a short time. I was just trying to point out a way of meeting a cofounder that others may not have considered.
While it's clearly not a good idea to cofound a startup with a new significant other, I completely disagree with characterizing a new relationship as a "green sprig." If the relationship is so tenuous that it can't handle a little stress and strain, then is it really worth trying to "tend" into a long-term relationship? From experience, that just delays the inevitable breakup.
Characterizing a new relationship like that also carries the implicit assumption that it's the last relationship you're capable of having. While I do my best to avoid hurting anyone, if a relationship is not working out there are other relationships to be had.