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

What We Look for in Founders

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 188 posts

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#171

Post by akkartik »

jayliew wrote: post #169
akkartik wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks Jay. "does getting into YC have to be a pre-requisite for your startup to succeed?" The goal isn't getting into YC. Or even a successful startup. It's finding something I can do that is of use to others. Somebody boiled it down to four words somewhere..

A long time ago when I met you, you told me you had a few passionate users that used it daily. Does that meet your criteria? May I ask what is it that you are looking for?

The users left. It's mostly just me and one last reader who checks out a couple of stories everyday. It doesn't engage anyone but me.

There's a problem with this whole category of apps. Reading solutions are like content - they're getting commoditized.

There's also lots of problems with this app itself. There's no overt personalization. It's good that the UI is simple, but bad that the layout is simplistic. There's none of the richness of a newspaper layout to stimulate the visual cortex.

If I could build something that truly engaged a few users I'd be happy for a while.

Let's chat more offline if you want.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#172

Post by Revisor »

akkartik wrote: post #161
raganwald wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was about to post how this list makes me question leaving BigCo. I must be in the 20%, I don't think I have any of these qualities, and behold, my bank account tells me that none of my ventures have succeeded.

Gahd, who reads this and thinks it describes them? Some of PG's essays stress me out just by reading them. They usually involve the d-word ( http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Apaulgraham.com+determi... ). I did my thing ( http://readwarp.com ) for 8 months. But PG and others told me early on it didn't have commercial possibility. So was it determination or inflexibility that I kept at it? I eventually figured it o…

Hi, I just checked Readwarp out and have absolutely no clue what it does. If it's some kind of personal, learning newsfeed I'd be definitely interested in it but without a clear proposition I can't be bothered to dive in deeply (you know, register and such).

Thought you'd like to know. Good luck.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#173

Post by Revisor »

llaxsll wrote: post #28
maxklein wrote: post #7

I bet 80% of people reading that list are thinking: This describes me perfectly.

It's a mindset. You believe it, you become it :).

That's actually more true than it sounds. Just a week ago I read Self-Theories by Carol Dweck where she sums up the 30 years of her research.

Summary: People who hold entity theory about their traits (ie they believe their traits - like intelligence, sociability etc - cannot change) are not able to change. People who hold the opposite incremental theory (they believe their traits can change) can and do change and they specifically seek out situations that help them grow (they don't fear failure and they like a challenge).

Everyone can pretty easily switch between entity and incremental theory by as much as reading a news article. Of course the long-term belief is rooted in deeper values but fot that you'll have to read the book. It's definitely worth it. IMO one of the best books a startupper can read.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#175

Post by jasonkester »

ptn wrote: post #112

pg: would you show an example of an impressive answer to the question about hacking a system to one's advantage?

Here's one:

I used to work as a salaried employee for a consulting firm. I'd record my hours on a timesheet so that they could bill the right clients, but anything over 40 hours a week was ignored on my paycheck. The understanding was that if ever your hours dropped below 40, you could bill an overhead number to make up for the difference, thus the fairness of not getting paid for overtime.

So a year in, I only managed to find 35 hours of work one week, so I called up HR and got that overhead number to put down for those extra 5 hours. Next day, I found myself in a meeting with my boss and his boss, being put on some form of probationary "hourly" status, working part time until I could get my workload back up to speed. I could work as few as 24 hours per week, and I'd only get paid for the hours I worked.

So naturally things picked up and soon I found myself working 50 and 60 hour weeks again, and amazingly, my new "hourly" status meant I was getting paid for all of them. HR sent up the necessary paperwork to get me back onto "Salaried" mode and I told them I'd get it right back to them.

1 month later, they sent that paperwork again, and I apologized for letting it go on so long.

Next month, my boss delivered it by hand and I promised to "get right on it."

Finally, after 180 days of billing 60 hour weeks and getting paid for all of it, I found myself back in that same room with my boss, his boss, and now his boss, all of whom wanting to know why I hadn't filled in that paperwork.

I laid out the math for them. Silence... Then uncontrolled laughter from all hands. Congratulations, son. But how about we fill out that paperwork right now?

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#176

Post by Estragon »

hariis wrote: post #151

What would be the value of this article? You are who you are. Some are innate qualities and some are simply the cards that you have been dealt with. You have to become what you want to be with what you got and then some one will write an article some day mentioning you as a reference and the qualities you have as the key to being a founder :)

This is discussed elsewhere in the thread. Search for Dweck

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#177

Post by ditojim »

pg wrote: post #57
robg wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a meaningful difference between friends who decide to do a startup together versus folks who decide to do a startup together and then become friends? The highest profile successes seem to be more an instance of the latter, but then success seems to help smooth any differences of opinion.

Yes, because in most startups there's a point where things seem hopeless. At that point the startup itself has no power to hold you together, because its expected value is (or appears to be) zero. You need a strong friendship to keep you together. E.g. I know for sure there were lots of times when Rtm thought Viaweb was never going to amount to anything, and only worked on it because I asked him to.

what about brothers?

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#178

Post by _b8r0 »

jswinghammer wrote: post #159

I struggled to think about how I would answer the "Naughty" question. I thought about it for awhile and remembered something that happened almost 15 years ago. I hated high school with a passion that still surprises me when I look back on it. My high school allowed kids who got accepted to college to go and have school pay for it while getting credit for college and high school. This sounded great to me but getting a…

I guess my answer to the naughtiness thing, was when I wanted something from a certain organisation. I looked at the organisation, looked at where their weaknesses were then made sure that I could find ways of addressing them. I then contacted said organisation, offered to fix their weaknesses, did so then asked for what I wanted, knowing that while it was a big ask, they'd have to say yes given what I'd put in, and that if they said no I'd scale back my support (which I think is not unreasonable). In the end they said yes because they wanted to, and felt that I'd put more than enough to justify it, although for me I just picked problems where I already had the solution, or was relatively close to having.

On the one hand, it seems somewhat insincere to approach someone with solutions and not immediately make your wants clear, but on the other it's a win-win all round.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#179

Post by iphoneedbot »

Thing I noticed about successful startups with friends as co-founders is that they are pretty young and both have entrepreneurial spirit. (Plus, the requisite complimentary skill-set)

Those are surprisingly uncommon combinations

What if your circle of friends are not entrepreneurial? What if your friends that /are\ entrepreneurial already have startups?

--then, of course; you'd have to find a co-founder (thats not a friend) or motivate a friend to be entrepreneurial - but, that in itself almost defeats the spirit of #5.

I do believe friends are very important, families as well.

1) They'll keep you motivated. 2) They'll give you advice/input. 3) They'll give you support; (tech expertise, business feedback and connections, etc..)

The quarter back, and the running back need not be friends to win the championships.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#180

Post by thewordpainter »

pg wrote: post #170
ig1 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine if you build something cool and get traction, YC will consider you even as a single founder.

We do fund single founders. There were 2 this summer. We just have a higher threshold with single founders, because it's harder to succeed as one. The last 3 of the 5 we'd compromise on if the person was good in other respects. Only the first 2 are essential. It's hard to imagine a startup succeeding without at least one person who was determined and flexible. It's just the nature of the domain.

100% agree. Another way of saying that: someone has to keep the ship afloat.

As for having other founders, it'll sure help when the ship is in rocky waters.

Aside from the complimentary skillset, it's nice to have another founder so they can pick you up when things aren't going your way.

Post reply on HN