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

The Only Way to Grow Huge

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#101

Post by smoyer »

pg wrote: post #27
sjtgraham wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that how enterprise sales work? I don't have any experience there but given how highly paid sales sharks seem to be inextricably linked to ES as opposed to social sharing buttons, I'd say no. There is always more than one way to skin a cat.

Actually in the enterprise market Sam's point is even more true. The greater power of incumbents means that you can't get customers unless your product is better by a large margin.

Incumbents do have an advantage, but the other key in enterprise markets is that you have to recognize you're selling to executives who won't generally use your product, so you have to sell based on they perceive important, but deliver what the company actually needs. I have a lot of stories (those funny/ironic/sad ones) that I won't go into!

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#102

Post by coldcode »

pdog wrote: post #41
pg wrote: post #36

Note to Sam: It's possible to anticipate ways HN readers will misunderstand you, and tweak what you write to pre-empt them. It takes some practice, but I'd guess I'm now able to do it maybe 3/4 of the time. In this case the most common misunderstanding seems to be not to realize that present day big companies were once small. You could have pre-empted that by reminding readers that once companies reach a certain size…

Even Microsoft (presented as a possible counterexample) had a great relationship with developers in the early years that sustained its incredible growth.

Where would MS be today if not for the luck of Digital Research turning away IBM? Maybe wind up like Lotus or Ashton-Tate?

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#103

Post by codingdave »

pg wrote: post #36

Note to Sam: It's possible to anticipate ways HN readers will misunderstand you, and tweak what you write to pre-empt them. It takes some practice, but I'd guess I'm now able to do it maybe 3/4 of the time. In this case the most common misunderstanding seems to be not to realize that present day big companies were once small. You could have pre-empted that by reminding readers that once companies reach a certain size…

For example, this comment would have made a lot more sense had it had a footnote reminding everyone that Sam is a partner at YC, and therefore does have reason to keep HN in mind as an audience when writing.

I had to figure that out from other comments, because my first reaction was, "Why is pg taking the time to tell some random blogger how to tailor their writing to this audience?"

(I'm a casual HN user, and don't keep up with YC, maybe the identity of the partners is more common knowledge in the larger population.)

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#104

Post by pg »

larrys wrote: post #54
pak wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this case the most common misunderstanding seems to be not to realize that present day big companies were once small. You could have pre-empted that by reminding readers that once companies reach a certain size they don't have to rely on making something great to grow bigger, but that if you look back at the earliest history of those companies, you'll find most did. (emphasis mine) It's hard to call it a misunde…

With all due respect to Sam I have no idea what qualifies Sam to even be opining on this subject without a bit more of a circumspect attitude. If he was a professor of business or had a long standing knowledge of business that would be one thing. The word "most" would certainly be better but even that goes a bit to far with a subject as large as "business" and "companies".

Sam understands startups better than almost anyone else I know. I defer to him on many topics. E.g. if any YC startup has a difficult fundraising problem, I give them my opinion but then send them to Sam for the last word.

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#105

Post by pg »

pak wrote: post #49
pg wrote: post #36

Note to Sam: It's possible to anticipate ways HN readers will misunderstand you, and tweak what you write to pre-empt them. It takes some practice, but I'd guess I'm now able to do it maybe 3/4 of the time. In this case the most common misunderstanding seems to be not to realize that present day big companies were once small. You could have pre-empted that by reminding readers that once companies reach a certain size…

> In this case the most common misunderstanding seems to be not to realize that present day big companies were once small. You could have pre-empted that by reminding readers that once companies reach a certain size they don't have to rely on making something great to grow bigger, but that if you look back at the earliest history of those companies, you'll find most did. (emphasis mine) It's hard to call it a misunde…

The most accurate version of the title would be something like "The Only Way You Can Grow Huge." There may be occasional edge cases where companies start out big. I'm hesitant even to offer an example, because there are so few, but perhaps Fannie Mae. But these edge cases don't matter to the readers this essay is aimed at, because they can't replicate them.

(And incidentally, there are no upward boosts for comments or stories, and even the penalties Ken described in that post are much simpler than he thinks. E.g. there is only a single penalty for lightweight domains, not a range of penalties chosen by us.)

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#106

Post by larrys »

pg wrote: post #104
larrys wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect to Sam I have no idea what qualifies Sam to even be opining on this subject without a bit more of a circumspect attitude. If he was a professor of business or had a long standing knowledge of business that would be one thing. The word "most" would certainly be better but even that goes a bit to far with a subject as large as "business" and "companies".

Sam understands startups better than almost anyone else I know. I defer to him on many topics. E.g. if any YC startup has a difficult fundraising problem, I give them my opinion but then send them to Sam for the last word.

I am not questioning that Sam knows about startups.

But Sam made an all inclusive statement regarding business and not just startups and startups that would be (I'm guessing) the type that YC would fund. I would send someone to Sam for that as well.

In the comments on this thread (in response to me) I am being taken to task over suggesting that he is not a business school professor (who has studied many types of businesses over many years) or an experience businessman (who has observed businesses over many years). Consequently his knowledge of business is almost certainly limited to what he has seen since college (mid 00's) and in a particular niche in the business world. Which was my point. His statement didn't reflect the niche that he knows about. And as you pointed out he didn't use any qualifiers or footnotes.

As far as business school professors I am quite aware of the limitations and the idea of "that who can do those who can't teach". (And exception might be someone like Steve Blank who I have worked with in the past.)

As an example I was sent a document to review by a business school professor that had already been distributed to students and found several obviously inaccurate statement about a subject that I know more than the professor does simply because I have been involved in the subject since 1996. And I work with it every single day. When the professor heard my comments they invited me to speak to the class.

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#108

Post by larrys »

nostrademons wrote: post #77
larrys wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect to Sam I have no idea what qualifies Sam to even be opining on this subject without a bit more of a circumspect attitude. If he was a professor of business or had a long standing knowledge of business that would be one thing. The word "most" would certainly be better but even that goes a bit to far with a subject as large as "business" and "companies".

He's founded a company. It was talent-acquired, but that's more than most professors of business ever achieve. Aside from the specific situation - I'm kinda curious what HN readers think "qualifies" a person to give advice. My girlfriend's doing an MBA. I read her coursework sometimes. Some of it is useful with the appropriate grain of salt applied, but I find that blog postings from people who have actually run busi…

I agree with what you are saying. I went to Wharton but I also have started and run two businesses not including things during high school and college. I am referring to specifically statements that Sam made which would have been something that someone who was either practicing for a longer time or had knowledge of business history would know about more than Sam. That was my point. I am well aware of "book" knowledge. And theory. My dad used to joke about that all the time when I was at Wharton. (I was in the entrepreneurship program.)

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#109

Post by dennisgorelik »

jacques_chester wrote: post #61
adwf wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is that I come from a physics degree background and hence have a tendency to stick with the more scientifically accurate "I think, maybe, probably, possibly, almost always", rather than going for absolutes. However, when you enter into the business world, you tend to find that this kind of language comes across as weak and uncertain. Even though you are merely trying to be correct and not give false i…

So, you got me to thinking. As a side-effect of his work on expert forecasting[1], Tetlock discovered that people put more stock in those who made confident predictions than those who qualified their predictions. To the point that he basically says: if a person is a famous pundit, they are more likely to be wrong, because the media prefers bold predictions to maybes and perhapses. In business you can be bold or not b…

People don't care much if pundits are right or wrong. Instead people care that pundits are clear (confident statements help with clarity).

Qualifiers are substituted by getting multiple opinions from different pundits.

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#110

Post by jacques_chester »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #109
jacques_chester wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you got me to thinking. As a side-effect of his work on expert forecasting[1], Tetlock discovered that people put more stock in those who made confident predictions than those who qualified their predictions. To the point that he basically says: if a person is a famous pundit, they are more likely to be wrong, because the media prefers bold predictions to maybes and perhapses. In business you can be bold or not b…

People don't care much if pundits are right or wrong. Instead people care that pundits are clear (confident statements help with clarity). Qualifiers are substituted by getting multiple opinions from different pundits.

I suppose I should have added that the confident pundits were usually wrong because they tended to make more extreme predictions. Most of the time, stuff doesn't change dramatically. Predicting big shifts all the time means that your overall hit rate is terrible, because big shifts are not the most common case.

Luckily there's an extreme predictor for every extreme event, so simple selection happily promotes some loudmouths to guru every now and then.

Post reply on HN