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

Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund

ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 401 posts

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund

#311

Post by cturner »

jerry5 wrote: post #202
cturner wrote: post #89

I'm working for (somebody else's) startup at the moment and happy with my positioning there, but I've got thoughts coming from a number of these. > 1. A cure for the disease of which the RIAA is a symptom. I built songseed.com with the intention of creating a community for artists (perhaps with careers in other fields) who care about the music and aren't hypnotised by the Big Lie that artists get the sign and then ma…

> some sort of trading system that mixed FX with a whole bunch of wacky synthetics to allow you to easily take positions on things which are normally more complicated Heh, what's this? I worked in FX at one point in time and found the whole thing very intriguing and inspiring. Maybe you can elaborate? There could be an overlap of interests.

Hmm. At the moment there seems to be a pattern creeping in of some of the majors allowing people to do non-deliverable trades against metal prices on futures exchanges (and for that matter NDFs on currencies which aren't liquid, I think it's the same trick underneath). I think this is very cool and wonder whether it could be slowly expanded further. For example - people could instead take holdings into funds linked to diversified investments in specific investments or currency pairs in online games.

But always using the FX approach to trading: Buy/sell, base/terms, three-letter-code currencies, spot/fwd and swap.

If liquidity emerged for more markets from user requests on the site, you could add them later. To be honest, it's such an obvious idea that there's either something wrong with it, or someone is doing it already, or both.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund

#312

Post by LarryV »

jerry5 wrote: post #287
LarryV wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think IT will ever become that important. IT will just take its rightful place next to Law Firms and Accounting Firms as a necessary part of the business but not the core. It is kind of surprising that IT, with its self references as fast-paced and innovative has taken so long to realize its own inefficiencies. IT (in the sense of internal computer systems for businesses) was greatly over invested starting in…

I have a vague idea what you mean by the 'inefficiencies'. I am wondering whether these would have manifested in the first place if IT had been given a more central role. It's a lot about motivation too, the 'central' people in a business are usually motivated by being shareholders as well as employees at the same time. If you treat IT as just another accountant they will find endless means and ways to drag their fee…

Jerry,

I totally agree that things could always be better and that incentives are the key to this. There is a business concept from the 80s called 'open book management' where everyone in the company sees where all the money goes. This is more transparency than even public companies have.

I think it could be a technique that would get everyone from accounting to IT more involved in the business. I also think there needs to be much shorter expectations of how long someone will work for a company. Hollywood is on to something with the way they bring together small teams to make a film that then disband and reform in a new configuration for the next film. I wonder what would happen if every person in the company had to choose each year whether they want to continue with the company. They would in effect have a one year job. This might make their sense of urgency and priority for the 52 weeks within that year much more focused. It might also form a company with much more dedicated people who really want to be there.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund

#313

Post by BerislavLopac »

dcurtis wrote: post #77
pg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. I was just saying that if you want to beat Google, that's their weak spot. Or at least a big one. Most people who read that one will think "huh?" But if someone reads it and thinks "Damn, how did he hear about what we're working on?" that's someone we'd really love to hear from.

As much as it pains me to say this, I think Google's lack of design sense might be their strong point in search. There's no extra crap to get in the way of search results. (Although I should say that in their other non-search products, it is most certainly a weakness.) There are of course new ways to view results, but with arguable advantage. A new startup I found recently, Viewzi ( http://www.viewzi.com/ ) does a pr…

If you think that Google has a minimalist UI, you should check http://www.trazhi.com :)

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund

#314

Post by wensing »

pg wrote: post #65
Giorgi wrote: post #62

Search engine that concentrates on design? What that supposed to mean?

I don't know. I was just saying that if you want to beat Google, that's their weak spot. Or at least a big one. Most people who read that one will think "huh?" But if someone reads it and thinks "Damn, how did he hear about what we're working on?" that's someone we'd really love to hear from.

A similar goal in mantra form: Make Google-fu obsolete.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund

#315

Post by biohacker42 »

I've been thinking about a better Wikipedia. It is silly for them to keep that style and decide what's worthy when they are not dealing with dead trees and limited shelf space.

I think something like a PGPedia, where articles are signed by the author and ranked much like this comment system would be great. There would be no editing of articles, just re-submissions. And nothing need ever be deleted, just down moderated.

You could search PGPedia by what's top rated, or by what famous uses have highly rated, what does Stephen Hawking think of articles on gravity, etc.

I expect encyclopedia style article to be top ranked but they would also link to longer more in depth articles, and those to even longer articles.

I just don't see any way to make money from that?

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund

#316

Post by ssharp »

TweedHeads wrote: post #45

How about fixing the domain fuckfest we have today? Most of these ideas will end up with stupid names like lulzdatr.com or bizzwarezz.com

You're absolutely right. Some .com's get away with misspelled names but the copycat effect has gotten ridiculous and shows a real lack of creativity.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund

#317

Post by ssharp »

foompy_katt wrote: post #179
trevelyan wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exclusivity would be unenforceable and consumers would game the system. Retailers would lose control over the perceived value of their product.

IANAL, so if you say exclusivity would be unenforceable, you might be right. But it's not really crucial- the only important thing is collecting useful data, and there are myriad ways to do that. You'll have to tell me how consumers would game the system. Declaring it doesn't make it so. I've thought on this idea for over three years- I could have missed something, but if I haven't seen it by now, I need someone else…

Retailers absolutely care. You're vastly underestimating how important price is to a product or service and its position.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund

#318

Post by pageman »

EnriqueAllen wrote: post #301

I would love to read each and every comment, internalize them, check out related websites, build out my mental models, and reach out to you but I just can't right now as a new week begins. Therefore I have to save this for digest on my phone during transitions. Anyone use a cool tool that helps deliver content like comments based on your schedule and attention capacity?

mindmapping tools? :)

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund

#319

Post by pchristensen »

dcurtis wrote: post #276
ra wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

put simply, .com is a brand

No, the thing you put before .com is part of the brand. The .com just adds legitimacy.

That's part of the value of a brand. If I see anything that's .biz or .info, it might as well be .ru for how much I distrust it.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund

#320

Post by huherto »

SethFinkelstein wrote: post #153

Regarding "23. More open alternatives to Wikipedia" - I investigated this myself a while back. A viable BUSINESS is much, much harder than it looks. To begin with, note Jimmy Wales's separate commercial company "Wikia" is already in that field, and both Wikia and Wikipedia people assist in moving some content from the noncommercial Wikipedia to the commercial Wikia. Let me be clear, I don't say what they do is illega…

I would like to have a place where you can have an intelligent discussion of wikipedia articles as well as being able to ask specific questions on the subject of the article. Currently, AFIK, the only discussion allowed is on how to improve the articles.
Post reply on HN