Hard Startups

People like to forget. It helps pretend government research and alliances always produce the best outcomes.

Your example may be a bit too old. Even novell netware, token ring etc won't ring a bell to many people.

Try a simpler one instead: Do you guys remember about the various wireless standards before Wifi?

The Orinocos and the Intel 2011 PCMCIA were IIRC among the first ones of the 802.11b - quickly eclipsing everything else.

Also, what about DECT from about the same period? Some companies (mostly in Europe) tried to make an equivalent of Wifi, but using DECT modems. Some devices even made it to the market!

I like your thought process. Thanks for sharing, and good luck!

What bothers me about Sam Altman's writing is the following:

1) He talks about X, X being an observation with survivorship bias painted all over it, but Sam Altman asserts as if it is true. Stop writing with authority over unsubstantiated claims - you can only be humble and say "Perhaps X is true because of my observations, take it with a grain salt".

2) Statements like "Easy startups are easy to start but hard to make successful." are fluffy with no real substance. I might as well read "How to become a millionaire" books.

3) Completely obvious observations: "Then talk about that big vision and work relentlessly towards it, but always have a reasonable next step." You might as well say "When you are embarking on a startup endeavor, make sure it is successful". I can't help but exclaim "No shit!".

IMO these articles and blog posts offer zero advice of substance. I despise them very much. There is nothing to learn from it, this is like grocery store aisle tabloid version of the Silicon Valley.

Interesting thoughts. Since you apparently have significant experience raising VC funding, I'm curious about your opinion on the following (others, of course, are welcome to chime in). If you were working on a deep tech (science-based) startup and considered using venture capital, would you prefer pitching your idea(s) to VCs, who happen to have relevant domain expertise (most likely, as their educational background) due to potentially being enthusiastic about relevant domain and problems as well as having better understanding of an industry and having some (additional) connections or, on the contrary, avoid such VCs as potentially being "biased" and/or having less enthusiasm / belief in probability of solving relevant problems and, subsequently, the success of the venture? (For the purpose of this question, assume that the market need is validated.)

I feel like the money quote was buried in the postscript.

> Another solution to this problem is to think about startups that can become quite successful with less than ten people. As compensation packages from the giant tech companies continue to increase, I suspect this will become a trend.

As cash comp at big public companies grow and the future value of startup options plummet, we need to start thinking about different ways to start businesses, and this feels like the right solution to me. Starting a company with 10 competent people that I enjoy being around and targeting $5-10mm in revenue sounds perfect. Maybe $10mm isn't reasonable, but even if we hit 1/4th of that amount, it's still plenty to support a small company.