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

211–220 of 331 posts

Re: Hard Startups

#211

Post by mattkrause »

killjoywashere wrote: post #129
SolarNet wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I actually just mean DARPA NASA is the obvious next example. They pay for a lot of esoteric stuff that once made they don't actually end up needing - but having paid the startup costs - end up contributing to other fields. I think FEMA also does similar things though at a much less parallel (but a higher volume). Most of the "regulate and promote an industry" (a dumb idea for structuring them but I digress) agencie…

IARPA, DTRA, SCO, DIU. The DoD spends like 50B a year in research and development. NIH and CDMRP grant programs is several additional billion.

NIH is about 40 billion, and does a lot less development.

Re: Hard Startups

#212

Post by selimthegrim »

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.

I think he means Google

Re: Hard Startups

#213

Post by ablekh »

im_down_w_otp wrote: post #173
ablekh wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate you sharing your opinion. So, essentially, you don't seem to think that potential cons of approaching VCs with domain knowledge that I mentioned above (inherent "bias" and lack of belief in possibility of certain solutions) outweigh relevant potential pros. Regarding other aspects, I certainly realize VCs' market size and financial upside considerations.

It could present issues if you're speaking to a particularly disagreeable VC, but you're unlikely to convince that person anyway. They've decided they've got an axe to grind and they're going to use you as the grindstone. If you're in a situation where you're having to overcome objections in your pitch, most of the time you've already lost, and you should just move on. The goal for your pitch is to figure out how to…

Understood, thank you. I agree with your points. However, just to clarify, the basis for my original question is whether it is possible to predict VCs' "(dis)agreeableness", based on their domain expertise or lack thereof. I appreciate your opinion and look forward to hearing more thoughts from this community.

Re: Hard Startups

#214

Post by titanomachy »

FiatLuxDave wrote: post #63
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…

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…

You're putting a lot of emphasis on ads, but lots of major SV companies have nothing to do with ads... Netflix, Uber, Apple, for example. Maybe you mean "software companies"?

Re: Hard Startups

#215

Post by titanomachy »

iratewizard wrote: post #73
bradlys wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is 2.5mm really viable for 10 people within SF Bay Area? That would mean compensation would be around $250k per person (not including payroll taxes, office rent, and whatever else cuts into that). That's distant from the compensation packages being given out by Big N.

Why does it need to be in the Bay Area? Or any expensive city for that matter? An EBITDA of $2.5mm in the Rust belt for instance is more than successful and would retain and satisfy top talent in the area. Does the biggest compensation package even attract the best talent? Or does it just attract the obsessively competitive to burn out in style?

It might be easier to convince a VC to give you a few million for salaries than to find 10 world-class developers currently looking for a new job in a rust belt city.

Re: Hard Startups

#216

Post by linuxhansl »

FiatLuxDave wrote: post #63
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…

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…

Hmm... I've been in the valley over 20 years now and I never worked at an "adtech" company.

In fact I very much prefer a company where customers pay for the services we deliver - something they want, as opposed to something the user typically does not want: Ads.

Re: Hard Startups

#217

Post by titanomachy »

thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #108

I agree with most of this post. But there's one part he's wrong about. The most precious commodity is not talent. As he said "That year, probably over 1,000 photo sharing startups were funded". That means, when that original photo sharing startup was hiring, it could have filled every position x1000 times, if they could find all those candidates. That's an indication of a vast oversupply of talent. The most precious…

I think you need a different kind of talent to build the "hard startups" he's talking about. Sure, there are a million folks who can throw together a CRUD photo-sharing app, especially with the improvements in cloud services and development frameworks in the last decade. If you want to build an AR headset, maybe there's a few dozen people with the right expertise to make it happen.

Re: Hard Startups

#218

Post by batmansmk »

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…

Nintendo was selling playing cards, Facebook was a student only network, Google wanted to index the whole world, SpaceX sends rockets in space and Uber's founder wanted to get a cab. Hard or soft, there is no rule of thumb.

Re: Hard Startups

#219

Post by [deleted] »

new_realist wrote: post #209

Translation: the only startups willing to play YC’s sweatshop game are fruit flies; they want meatier deal flow. I doubt the founders of hard startups are that stupid.

[deleted]

Re: Hard Startups

#220

Post by an_outsider »

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…

There are three things in my view which you can theoretically use for recruiting at a small company. Sorry, I don't have personal experience using them, I am just making observations:

- I recently heard of a company offering a publicly announced 4 day workweek and being able to recruit very good talent. I am not sure if Big Tech can make it a public policy.

- You can point out that there is a much smaller need to be politically correct. For example, it is extremely un-PC to be openly supporting Trump in big tech today, and anyone who says otherwise is just lying to you. I know someone very closely who works in one of the big tech companies and I can tell you that he is wrapped in a very strange bubble. For example, he was 100% convinced that Trump will be impeached and booted out of office before his term completed. Now he has stopped talking about the impeachment altogether. It is actually hilarious.

- the "cult" problem. Sooner or later, everyone who defends their big tech job will be referred to as acting like a cult member [1]. I am not sure how a small company can run into the cult problem.

[1] Like this person:

"Remember, what Facebook is doing has never been done before. There are going to be mistakes."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19321420

Post reply on HN