Live data from Hacker News

Hard Startups

blog.samaltman.com

81–90 of 331 posts

Re: Hard Startups

#81
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but optimizing for what?

For fundraising time and effort.

I will venture a guess that you'd do better pitching people with domain experience, particularly if their fund targets your domain. I have never pitched a hard science startup but I believe it's generally true that people prefer to invest in things they know and understand. It has certainly been true of my fundraising efforts in niche markets.

Re: Hard Startups

#82
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…

Former fusion startup founder here. This is a very good point. My startup took 6 years to fail and much of our competition at the time is still at it 20 years later. There are a number of things which are also impedance mismatches between the typical SV startup mode and hard startups. One of these is the failure path. When an adtech startup fails, the founders just go get well-paying jobs at a FAANG, or at least that…

How do you maintain momentum at these kinds of time scales?

When I ran engineering at a startup, I tried to structure things such that we deliver something worthwhile at some kind of predictable cadence. It's the best set-up for everyone: the employees feel like they've accomplished someting, the investors feel like there's progress being made. With software this is pretty easy to do (and even so, people often fail to do it).

But with a "hard" startup the gap between concrete deliverables can be years, and while you could put together some intermediate milestones, they'd probably feel contrived. How do you keep people engaged over long timescales like that?

Re: Hard Startups

#83
This is true: If I'm going to take a 40-50% paycut (or more) then I better damn well believe in their goal and mission, enough that their 1% equity will be valuable to me. It's on an emotional level, not a practical one.

Re: Hard Startups

#85

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…

HNCS (Hacker News Comment Section) is turning into AWZ (A WarZone) with these acronyms.

Here are some definitions of acronyms:

B2B: Business to business.

SME: Small and Medium Enterprise? Subject Matter Expert?

CRUD: Create Read Update Delete.

B2SMB: Business to Small Business?

CEO: Chief exec officer, SEO: search engine optimization, they have nothing to do with one another.

VC: venture capital

I'm not sure what SME means, that's why I posted this.

Re: Hard Startups

#87
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Former fusion startup founder here. This is a very good point. My startup took 6 years to fail and much of our competition at the time is still at it 20 years later. There are a number of things which are also impedance mismatches between the typical SV startup mode and hard startups. One of these is the failure path. When an adtech startup fails, the founders just go get well-paying jobs at a FAANG, or at least that…

How do you maintain momentum at these kinds of time scales? When I ran engineering at a startup, I tried to structure things such that we deliver something worthwhile at some kind of predictable cadence. It's the best set-up for everyone: the employees feel like they've accomplished someting, the investors feel like there's progress being made. With software this is pretty easy to do (and even so, people often fail t…

I know nothing about businesses like these, but I assume that the people who need to be engaged with the idea and work know that things come at a slow pace and are fine with it.

It's different than getting someone who wants to see results every day. In that type of work, progress is measured differently.

Re: Hard Startups

#88
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For fundraising time and effort.

I will venture a guess that you'd do better pitching people with domain experience, particularly if their fund targets your domain. I have never pitched a hard science startup but I believe it's generally true that people prefer to invest in things they know and understand. It has certainly been true of my fundraising efforts in niche markets.

I very much appreciate your advice as well as being first to provide feedback. Pretty much the same rationale was my original thought as well, but I want to hear a variety of opinions. Let's see what other people might think and/or argue about this aspect.

Re: Hard Startups

#89
post #85

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…

HNCS (Hacker News Comment Section) is turning into AWZ (A WarZone) with these acronyms. Here are some definitions of acronyms: B2B: Business to business. SME: Small and Medium Enterprise? Subject Matter Expert? CRUD: Create Read Update Delete. B2SMB: Business to Small Business? CEO: Chief exec officer, SEO: search engine optimization, they have nothing to do with one another. VC: venture capital I'm not sure what SME…

Yes, SME is subject matter expert.

Re: Hard Startups

#90
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…

Sadly academia for a while now has been subject to the same short-term funding concerns as businesses but without the same flexibility and options for generating that funding.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Research in academia, research labs, and even in some business environments used to be able to focus on and tackle big problems.

These days, funding agencies/sponsors are incorporating more and more business mentality into the research process and focusing on concepts like "sustainability" etc. with short turn around.

You can't expect short term results on difficult problems. If they were easy, they'd have already been solved.

Post reply on HN