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

Frighteningly Unambitious Startup Ideas

ardenthoughts.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 133 posts

Re: Frighteningly Unambitious Startup Ideas

#91

Post by samstave »

tptacek wrote: post #84
samstave wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either I didnt articulate my point well enough, or you misunderstood it. The idea that YC can fund a web-app, mobile-app or completely web-based feature-as-a-service for 150K is well founded. My point is that within the realm of "ridiculously ambitious ideas" are those that would require a shitload more seed capital to build out. Do you think that SpaceX, which is obviously ridiculously ambitious, was seeded with sim…

Now you're zigzagging. Your original point was that YC might have trouble finding ambitious startups because the 150k YC companies end up getting isn't enough to get you out of your salaried job. That argument has an easy response: getting you out of your salaried job has a low expected ROI. The rest of this point is just the same tired argument: yes, for any given startup, there is a more ambitious startup you can e…

First, If I am zigzagging - I am thinking out loud here on HN - and am happy to hear how I am wrong. SO please forgive me if I do contradict myself as I am trying to find the best way to articulate my thoughts.

I am fully open to being shown that I am flat wrong.

With that said:

Could you even imagine a seed funding model that would attract Elon Musk? What would it have to include?

This is part of my point. I can't think of such a ridiculously ambitious idea being seed funded.

PG said he wants the ridiculously ambitious ideas - I am saying that such ideas are likely not achievable with the traditional YC model.

So, to the second half of your comment; "What would it have to include?"

I am not sure, but lets think out loud here for a sec:

Given we are looking for the truly revolutionary ideas - what assumptions need to be in place in order to attract, identify, foster and enable these ideas:

First; lets recognize they can come from all walks. We need to be able to evaluate the ideas, quantify the effort and impact and accommodate whomever they may come from.

Maybe THIS is what the available YC resources should be positioned to do.

"You might as well argue against the whole concept of seed funding"

Maybe I am naive - but what if we change what our meaning of seed funding is within this context -- The seed funding is not for MVP, or first launch - the seed funding is exactly that - to seek out, identify and locate the seed - carry it and THEN plant it.

Again - please tell me if I am just sounding stupid - I am trying to think outside of constraints/conditioning I have observed in the traditional funding model.

Thanks

Re: Frighteningly Unambitious Startup Ideas

#92

Post by tptacek »

samstave wrote: post #91
tptacek wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you're zigzagging. Your original point was that YC might have trouble finding ambitious startups because the 150k YC companies end up getting isn't enough to get you out of your salaried job. That argument has an easy response: getting you out of your salaried job has a low expected ROI. The rest of this point is just the same tired argument: yes, for any given startup, there is a more ambitious startup you can e…

First, If I am zigzagging - I am thinking out loud here on HN - and am happy to hear how I am wrong. SO please forgive me if I do contradict myself as I am trying to find the best way to articulate my thoughts. I am fully open to being shown that I am flat wrong. With that said: Could you even imagine a seed funding model that would attract Elon Musk? What would it have to include? This is part of my point. I can't t…

I'm sounding snippier than I mean to.

YC has a model that seems like it would have stood a credible shot at capturing Google in 1997.

That there are companies more ambitious than Google that wouldn't even consider a "seed stage" is not, I don't think, particularly relevant.

Also: the point of YC is to put fingerprints on the maximal number of successful startups. Ideas from people who aren't inclined to start companies aren't a particularly important part of that. You lost me with "revolutionary ideas". Ideas aren't what's important.

Re: Frighteningly Unambitious Startup Ideas

#93

Post by vectorpush »

jrkelly wrote: post #85
pg wrote: post #81

"If I were Paul Graham, these types of companies simply would not satisfy me (despite what look to be very lucrative payoffs)." That's hilarious, because I'm the one who wrote all the summaries of the startups that she's judging them by. I deliberately express startup ideas as x for y whenever possible because that's the most efficient way to describe a startup in a few words. Airbnb, for example, was in its day "eBa…

I wasn't at the Demo Day, but it's hard to consider making car repair more efficient to be a problem that really matters. Not saying it can't be a decent business, but your essay about ambitious ideas was pushing people to do better.

I have to disagree. For many Americans, car repair is one of the most expensive and opaque processes out there. Most people who drive have a critical need for that transportation, so when their car won't go, they pretty much have to suck it up and pay whatever fees the mechanic pulls out of his ass.

My point being, this type of disruption would be a very big deal for your average joe.

Re: Frighteningly Unambitious Startup Ideas

#94

Post by tptacek »

jrkelly wrote: post #85
pg wrote: post #81

"If I were Paul Graham, these types of companies simply would not satisfy me (despite what look to be very lucrative payoffs)." That's hilarious, because I'm the one who wrote all the summaries of the startups that she's judging them by. I deliberately express startup ideas as x for y whenever possible because that's the most efficient way to describe a startup in a few words. Airbnb, for example, was in its day "eBa…

I wasn't at the Demo Day, but it's hard to consider making car repair more efficient to be a problem that really matters. Not saying it can't be a decent business, but your essay about ambitious ideas was pushing people to do better.

I am just baffled by the idea that people here think there isn't a huge dent to be made in the universe in auto repair. There are 723,400 auto mechanics in the US alone, making a median of $35k in an incredibly inefficient marketplace that fleeces and inflicts misery on millions of working class families (who get to work and their kids to school in cars, not fixies) every year.

Re: Frighteningly Unambitious Startup Ideas

#95

Post by tptacek »

Schwolop wrote: post #89
samstave wrote: post #33

The reason why I think that it is difficult to say a frighteningly ambitious startup idea is actually something that is expected to come through YC, is that the funding that YC provides is miniscule, and will cover hardly an annual salary for a single, accomplished person who has a lot of domain knowledge in a field they may want to disrupt. As someone in the medical space who is 37, married with 2 kids - My salary i…

I can empathise with your situation, but I think you're right about some things and wrong about others. You're right that its difficult for a mortgaged family breadwinner to give up the stable income. You're right that YC's contribution of $20k or even the $150k convertible note from Conway and Milner isn't going to cut it when spread amongst multiple founders. You're right that a typical startup salary is far below…

the terms aren't set because $20k is a lifeline, they're set because just-above-starvation is the impetus for you to work your arse off getting to profitability

Respectfully (I don't know you): this is bullshit. The terms are set this way because that's what the market will bear in this specific instance. The idea that the terms of VC deals are structured to align the incentives of founders with VCs is a negotiating tactic and little more.

Misaligned incentives might keep you from taking 6 figures off the table in an A round, but anybody who tells you that they're deliberately calibrating your funding to keep you at a below-market salary is feeding you a line.

There are plenty of founders, some of them first-time founders, who make at, near, or better than market salaries. Most of the difference between them and the people whose boards get them to live on ramen is simple negotiating skill.

This isn't to say that there isn't some "hustle quotient" to be extracted from underpaying founders. Just that it isn't dispositive.

Re: Frighteningly Unambitious Startup Ideas

#96

Post by waterlesscloud »

vectorpush wrote: post #93
jrkelly wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't at the Demo Day, but it's hard to consider making car repair more efficient to be a problem that really matters. Not saying it can't be a decent business, but your essay about ambitious ideas was pushing people to do better.

I have to disagree. For many Americans, car repair is one of the most expensive and opaque processes out there. Most people who drive have a critical need for that transportation, so when their car won't go, they pretty much have to suck it up and pay whatever fees the mechanic pulls out of his ass. My point being, this type of disruption would be a very big deal for your average joe.

I'm curious what it is about Your Mechanic that will make the process any less opaque for the end user?

Ok, so they arrange for the "best" mechanics to come to you to fix your car. The coming to you is cool, and certainly improves convenience. But lessens opaqueness? Not seeing it.

What guarantee is there that the whole thing won't just turn into something like the big car repair chains are now? "Looks like you got a burned out frabulator, that's gonna run you about 14 hunnert." And the customer doesn't know if they do or not, they just have to trust this "best" mechanic. What about this system prevents that, which is the part that most people hate about dealing with mechanics. The big chains already have standardized pricing, that's not the problem here. The problem is trusting that the work being done is what needs to be done.

What's the criteria for "best"? How will they keep the criteria from slipping as they go through explosive growth?

It's not that I don't think the system can't be disrupted, it's that I think it's going to be a lot of work for marginal improvements. I don't see how it's going to be transformative.

Re: Frighteningly Unambitious Startup Ideas

#97

Post by moocow01 »

tptacek wrote: post #94
jrkelly wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't at the Demo Day, but it's hard to consider making car repair more efficient to be a problem that really matters. Not saying it can't be a decent business, but your essay about ambitious ideas was pushing people to do better.

I am just baffled by the idea that people here think there isn't a huge dent to be made in the universe in auto repair. There are 723,400 auto mechanics in the US alone, making a median of $35k in an incredibly inefficient marketplace that fleeces and inflicts misery on millions of working class families (who get to work and their kids to school in cars, not fixies) every year .

Lets not go overboard - I'm sure some customers have their complaints but your making the car repair industry sound equivalent to today's Wall Street. I genuinely rarely hear people complain about car repair - now if we were back in 1970 or 1980 Id have a different opinion.

Re: Frighteningly Unambitious Startup Ideas

#98

Post by waterlesscloud »

pg wrote: post #81

"If I were Paul Graham, these types of companies simply would not satisfy me (despite what look to be very lucrative payoffs)." That's hilarious, because I'm the one who wrote all the summaries of the startups that she's judging them by. I deliberately express startup ideas as x for y whenever possible because that's the most efficient way to describe a startup in a few words. Airbnb, for example, was in its day "eBa…

I don't know if it's fair to say it's like Telephone. From what you're describing, she's reading exactly what the lead investor in these companies had to say about them.

I mean this in the best way possible, but if the descriptions don't sell the vision of the company, maybe that's something that needs some attention?

Re: Frighteningly Unambitious Startup Ideas

#99

Post by derrida »

jrkelly wrote: post #85
pg wrote: post #81

"If I were Paul Graham, these types of companies simply would not satisfy me (despite what look to be very lucrative payoffs)." That's hilarious, because I'm the one who wrote all the summaries of the startups that she's judging them by. I deliberately express startup ideas as x for y whenever possible because that's the most efficient way to describe a startup in a few words. Airbnb, for example, was in its day "eBa…

I wasn't at the Demo Day, but it's hard to consider making car repair more efficient to be a problem that really matters. Not saying it can't be a decent business, but your essay about ambitious ideas was pushing people to do better.

...and eBay sold trinket-junk at first. I wasn't at demo-day but it's easy to see a path of iterations that goes from mechanics repairing cars today, to plumbing, to other trades to people designing and building real-world houses from their computers tomorrow.

I'm not saying this is where it is going, and as an investor you can not value a business based on these far-out ideas. But as a hacker/entrepreneur I imagine the founders are having dreams every bit as lofty as the one I just presented.

Re: Frighteningly Unambitious Startup Ideas

#100

Post by pg »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #98
pg wrote: post #81

"If I were Paul Graham, these types of companies simply would not satisfy me (despite what look to be very lucrative payoffs)." That's hilarious, because I'm the one who wrote all the summaries of the startups that she's judging them by. I deliberately express startup ideas as x for y whenever possible because that's the most efficient way to describe a startup in a few words. Airbnb, for example, was in its day "eBa…

I don't know if it's fair to say it's like Telephone. From what you're describing, she's reading exactly what the lead investor in these companies had to say about them. I mean this in the best way possible, but if the descriptions don't sell the vision of the company, maybe that's something that needs some attention?

I meant it's a sort of semantic equivalent of Telephone, where the message stays the same but its meaning gets changed.

As I said, those descriptions aren't meant to sell the vision of the company. They're just so one can remember which is which.

Post reply on HN