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

191–200 of 331 posts

Re: Hard Startups

#191

Post by baddox »

cbhl wrote: post #75
marcosdumay wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Novell had NetWare and IPX. Apple had AppleTalk. There was also Token ring...

Wouldn't TCP/IP run on token ring? My understanding that token ring is at the same layer as Ethernet, and thus wouldn't exactly be a competitor for TCP/IP.

Re: Hard Startups

#192

Post by Gatsky »

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?

The importance of government research is waning. Most academics vying for government funding are in various states of despair. The blow up in the size of universities and the number of PhDs etc has created a lot of competition with perverse incentives. In biotech, nothing interesting gets done without very early private investment (pharma mainly, some VCs).

Re: Hard Startups

#193

Post by choonway »

I think Tesla, SpaceX is an indication of how much investor faith and strength of stomach is required in order to make things work.

But honestly, how many VCs would rather invest in something else than see 2 rocket launches fail in a row and getting laughed at?

Re: Hard Startups

#195

Post by deepnotderp »

euix wrote: post #101
amirhirsch wrote: post #68

Counterpoint: If you're looking for a life-changing outcome you probably shouldn't work on a hard startup until after you've already saved some money working somewhere else -- like at least spend two years somewhere stable so you can get approved for a mortgage. Investors in hard startups are often more like patrons who don't really understand the tech in which they are investing. They probably got their first taste…

Are you talking about Jim Simons and the Flatiron institute right here? In his case at least, he is paying pretty well.

Rentec is the polar opposite of "easy software"

Re: Hard Startups

#196

Post by jackcosgrove »

jkubicek wrote: post #49

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 diff…

Bootstrapped small businesses are as old as dirt. If you aren't going to scale, why do you need venture funding?

Venture funded startups may prove to have been a temporary kind of business made possible by the technological frontier of first the personal computer and then the internet.

If a new computing platform comes along the VC model will keep chugging, because you've gotta plant that flag as fast as possible.

I see the diminishing value of working for startups as a sign of the maturity of the internet. Rather than try to swim against the current, it's probably better to find a new shoreline. And inventing that new platform is a very hard problem.

Re: Hard Startups

#197

Post by Arelius »

aerosmile wrote: post #144
SolarNet wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the point. The valley used to be (still is actually) a windswept burning desert half the year. Which is part of what makes its 60's self comparable to Detroit.

Sorry, but for all of Valley's problems, the above characterization couldn't be more wrong. You might be thinking of a part of California east of I-5, but Valley as it pertains to the tech hub couldn't be more pleasant from the climate perspective.

You might be right, but as a San Franciscan, who had to stop by the office in Palo Alto today, the sun did feel a bit oppressive =)

Re: Hard Startups

#198

Post by realbarack »

fenwick67 wrote: post #159
killjoywashere wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Detroit has deep, fundamental problems. the weather, the utilities, the failed neighborhoods. You can cut costs significantly just by moving to San Diego and not have to explain to prospective applicants why living in a windswept frozen wasteland half the year is appealing.

San Diego has deep, fundamental problems. the cost of living, the homelessness, the failed neighborhoods. You can cut costs significantly just by moving to Detroit and not have to explain to prospective applicants why living in a feces-riddled yet expensive nightmare is appealing.

I would be shocked if you found it easier to convince candidates to relocate to Detroit than to San Diego.

Re: Hard Startups

#199

Post by unexaminedlife »

I'm almost thinking hard startups shouldn't exist. If a startup is considered hard, what is making it hard. Probably ecosystem / infrastructure. Maybe a good approach would be to ask the founder why timeline is so long or will cost so much. Once they answer those questions, ask them to build an "easier" startup that will be able to sustain itself and can (eventually) partner with the "hard" startup, which will only be launched once it becomes easy.

And I'm not saying do something different. I'm saying the "easier" startup would be built as a means to enabling the hard startup.

Re: Hard Startups

#200

Post by xwowsersx »

Arelius wrote: post #190
Animats wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That came up recently in connection with a VR-related startup. They've been working for years, and they just canned the project and laid off about 60 people. It's all in-house code. So now the people laid off have to find new jobs. They don't have any of the buzzwords resume scanners want. Heroku? No. React? No. Unreal Engine? No. Unity? No. SpatialOS? No. WebAsm? No. Kubernetes? No. Docker? No. AWS? No. Javascript?…

Meh, I've worked 15 years almost entirely at companies using almost entirely in-house technology. Maybe it's because I don't interview for web-tech roles, but I really have never had any problems getting opportunities, and I don't think I'm unique. I think buzzwords are less relevant if you have any amount of specialist skills or significant experience. For instance, I constantly head hunted for jobs with Unreal Engi…

I agree with this. It's true that there may be less liquidity in the market outside of web tech stuff, but it's not all jobs. There are plenty of companies looking for people with either a) specialist skills which aren't web or b) good engineer skills generally (agnostic as to specific tech)

Not all companies are playing buzzword bingo.

Post reply on HN