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

Hard Startups

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 331 posts

Re: Hard Startups

#31

Post by mc32 »

beat wrote: post #16
pjdemers wrote: post #7

The problem with startups building hard tech is it takes a long time to fail. Failures that take decades doesn't work in the startup model. Image working on a fusion reactor. It might take 25 years to fail. The failure may not be that your idea doesn't work, but because some other kind of reactor comes along that is a better business (ie, cheaper). At this point, you are now a world class expert at a technology that…

Right. Which is why government research is probably a better model for these world-changing basic technologies than Silicon Valley. Ugh, can you imagine how bad TCP/IP would have sucked if it had been developed by venture capital funding?

Or companies which can afford research fellows working on fundamental technologies with a very long view.

Re: Hard Startups

#32

Post by ssivark »

“When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

Seems like Sam Altman’s hammer is startup investing, so he tries to solve everythin... even the most challenging/ambitious problems through those means.

Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad approach, but that seems to be his bias.

It’s worth having a more nuanced discussion. The current piece sounds more like cheerleading than advice.

Re: Hard Startups

#33

Post by Liron »

Long-term-committed founders are indeed a big advantage to a business.

If you're committed to investing 20 years of your time into a startup, then you're self-funding a multi-$million Series A, just in terms of market value of your time.

Investors who spot a commited founder and buy in at pre-seed valuation are getting a deal.

Re: Hard Startups

#34

Post by outworlder »

streb-lo wrote: post #25
erobbins wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which tcp/ip? There would be 10, all with incomplete feature sets and poor reliability.

"Here at bleh we've developed a revolutionary method for transmitting your TCP/IP packets on-chain using AI to perform network level flow control."

The system would probably store all packets in a block chain and routing would be based on a machine learning system.

Re: Hard Startups

#35

Post by dheera »

> The most counterintuitive secret about startups is that it’s often easier to succeed with a hard startup than an easy one.

For white male founders, yes. For a lot of others, they don't believe you can do something hard. Speaking from numerous fundraising experiences in which I got continually asked crappy "how do I believe you can do this" and even "what would you do if I do [bad thing]" type questions instead of growth questions.

I realize I'll probably get downvoted not just on Sand Hill road but on HN as well, but I believe this does need to be said.

Re: Hard Startups

#36

Post by Ididntdothis »

rogerkirkness wrote: post #6
kristiandupont wrote: post #4

Before I started Submotion, I did a fairly thorough analysis of what kind of startup I wanted to create. I decided that I wanted to create something that - was B2B. Consumers are fickle, things can explode but they can also go out of style just as fast. It's more sexy and makes for better smalltalk but my assessment is that they are much more difficult to grow predictably. - targets SME's. I am somewhat extroverted f…

I agree with this, except we decided on closing CEO deals, we sucked at SEO by comparison.

If you are comfortable with this approach you should have a great future ahead. Most engineers would hate that approach although that’s where the money is.

Re: Hard Startups

#37

Post by marcosdumay »

beat wrote: post #16
pjdemers wrote: post #7

The problem with startups building hard tech is it takes a long time to fail. Failures that take decades doesn't work in the startup model. Image working on a fusion reactor. It might take 25 years to fail. The failure may not be that your idea doesn't work, but because some other kind of reactor comes along that is a better business (ie, cheaper). At this point, you are now a world class expert at a technology that…

Right. Which is why government research is probably a better model for these world-changing basic technologies than Silicon Valley. Ugh, can you imagine how bad TCP/IP would have sucked if it had been developed by venture capital funding?

> Ugh, can you imagine how bad TCP/IP would have sucked if it had been developed by venture capital funding?

It was. Several times. It was developed by a lot of large companies too. Nobody remember those, for obvious reasons, but people used to use them.

Re: Hard Startups

#38

Post by 1996 »

sp527 wrote: post #9

It’s odd (read: motivated by self-interest) that he didn’t make any attempt to establish the failure rate of these startups and the distribution of outcomes for employees. Further, he didn’t even argue for a referendum on equity comp. He’s blatantly peddling the same broken model of “sell them your fugazzi so they can’t tell their talent is being plundered for (founder/investor) economic gain”. It’s downright insulti…

I think people downvote you because you attack their dream that they are "special" (snowflake syndrome, geek version) and will somehow succeed even if on average startups DO crash and burn.

You don't seem to be mean, just maybe a little blunt, but it changes nothing: In my experience on HN as in anywhere in the world, people hate to be told then reminded of their failures ("I told you so!"). Because truth hurt.

You are trying to give them the truth in one simple post, while YC and co are selling a dream in an expansive application process (in terms of time, effort, equity lost etc)

Sorry, but you just can't compete.

> The highest EV play is to first get wealthy and THEN do what you want

Exactly. Shut up and work for a while, then when you take risks, do it on your own schedule and bankroll. If you are as good as you think you are, certainly profits will come raining! And you will be the only one collecting with a very large bucket. If it's just a "small" acquisition (say 6 digits, something that a fund would find a sad outcome), you will be extremely happy and be ready to try again with your new fuel and hopes- thanks again to your large bucket.

Still, there is a place for things like YC: when your idea blows out of proportion and you know that it will die if it can't grow fast enough. But it's an exception, not a rule.

Than again, why I am bothering, you can't tell anything to people who don't want to listen.

About the "mission"? I disagree with you. Maybe that's what getting you downvoted. We all have one! Mine is to maximize my lifetime wealth while doing things that I enjoy because they match my morality. I think most people have a variant of this one - and, no lie, it is designed to keep funneling money to oneself!

Re: Hard Startups

#39

Post by chris_f »

chubot wrote: post #8
dickjocke wrote: post #3

This seems very related to the blog post that introduced me to Paul Graham, and in turn Hacker News, about a phenomenon he calls Schlep Blindness. http://www.paulgraham.com/schlep.html I would be curious what people think today's most obvious schelps or hard problems are? Nuclear Fission as in OPs post is cool, but Im thinking more along the lines of something a team of competent developers could do.

I feel like one of the hardest problems in tech is making search engine that credibly competes with Google. It's not just because the tech is hard (and it is), but also because they have some of the strongest network effects, user lock-in, and distribution deals. It sounds almost dumb/crazy for people to try, but there is a newer effort from Europe that I saw on HN recently (i.e. they've been working for ~5 years and…

"It sounds almost dumb/crazy for people to try..."

Timely comment. I hesitantly shared a "Show HN" this morning for an early search engine I have been working on.

I almost feel silly when I tell people about it because I realize it is such a crazy idea. It's obviously nowhere even close to being a competitor to anyone today, but I figure why not.

I have been lucky with two prior highly vertical startups, so I decided that my next project would involve asymmetric risk.

Re: Hard Startups

#40

Post by kristiandupont »

rogerkirkness wrote: post #6
kristiandupont wrote: post #4

Before I started Submotion, I did a fairly thorough analysis of what kind of startup I wanted to create. I decided that I wanted to create something that - was B2B. Consumers are fickle, things can explode but they can also go out of style just as fast. It's more sexy and makes for better smalltalk but my assessment is that they are much more difficult to grow predictably. - targets SME's. I am somewhat extroverted f…

I agree with this, except we decided on closing CEO deals, we sucked at SEO by comparison.

Oh I am not doing any SEO either. I am still writing emails and making calls, just not the kind that start a 6-month long sales process ending with cigars :-)
Post reply on HN