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

New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 219 posts

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#101

Post by johnvschmitt »

calcsam wrote: post #40

YC will need a change in their funding model if they want to fund these type of technologies. $14k to $20k is irrelevant if you need 3 years R&D and/or $5M capital to prototype; we need new metrics for funding businesses with high capital cost and/or long incubation time.

Yup. And, it can't be "idea to demo day" in 3 months for those hardware issues where iterations take weeks (or at least days) compared to hours/minutes for compile-time on software.

I love the change in focus to be more bold, real, rather than just chasing easy things like software/apps/games. But, the model must change too. I think Sam & team are up for that challenge, & will adapt, so don't think of this as a permanent shortcoming in any way.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#102

Post by cbhl »

kyro wrote: post #57
garry wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both Thalmic Labs and the Meta project are examples of longer term projects that raise money through YC. There are a bunch more in the current batch that have a much longer time frame. While the three month demo is a constraint, it is not one that kills ambitious projects at YC.

Given that these more visionary, long-term, scientific startups will often require founders of a different demographic than what we're used to seeing (eg. older, more experienced in a given field, maybe with obligations like a spouse and kids), will you guys modify your approach to evaluating applications, more specifically the founding teams?

> older, more experienced in a given field, maybe with obligations like a spouse and kids

I'm not convinced that this describes the Thalmic guys at all.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#103

Post by rayiner »

supersystem wrote: post #89
rayiner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone needs to show that you can actually make money with something like this. The problem with these sorts of ventures is that besides being capital-intensive and risky, it can be quite hard to capture the economic benefits of the development in a way that justifies the investment. There's also the issue of whether Silicon Valley has the requisite infrastructure to facilitate these sorts of projects. If you want t…

The only thing that really matters for YC is if the company can be acquired. With Google just buying a bunch of robotics companies and the belief in "geek exceptionalism" as high as ever I've seen worse bets.

Okay, can they get Boeing to acquire one of those companies? Because those are the kinds of relevant players in most of these areas.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#104

Post by iamwil »

In any startup, there's broad categories of risk. One is whether it's a market risk (we have the tech to solve problems, but we don't know if anyone has this problem), or if it's a technology risk (we know this to be a problem, but we don't know if we can solve it with tech).

For the last couple of years, we've been taking existing technologies, and applying them to different markets or creating new markets. AirBnb, Uber, Homejoy, Twitter are good examples of this.

This can't last forever on any one existing tech, and so @sama's just calling for startups that are technology risks instead of market risks. Such startups may be more capital intensive, but not to the point where it's a non-starter unless you have 100 mil, like others are talking about.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#105

Post by supersystem »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #56
kyro wrote: post #7

I feel like this is a big shift in focus for YC and for the industry if others follow suit. This will do a lot of good in changing the image of the typical startup, from who starts them to what their ambitions are, signaling to those in other industries that the valley isn't just about young code-slingers and iOS apps. I hope this encourages people in STEM with years of specialized domain experience to look at starti…

This would reinvigorate some of us who are jaded by SV's astounding lack of ambition towards actually solving hard problems as well. I didn't become an engineer to crank out CRUD apps in some rock star's crazy DSL all day.

With YC companies not solving hard problems in computing I don't see them suddenly solving hard problems in other fields. And with "hard problems" I don't (only) mean CS, I mean problems with the state of computing like security, robustness, cross-platforms tools etc. that could be huge enablers for other fields.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#106

Post by temuze »

pg wrote: post #92
hooande wrote: post #85

There's a new sheriff in town. Previously YC treated some of these things, especially "AI" (whatever that means) as third rails. They've funded an extremely broad range of companies, but if you go back and check their past investments most of the areas listed in this RFS are underrepresented. Infrastructure, food and water, biotech, robotics...YC could be reaching much higher in terms of ambition than it has in the p…

You can't build part of an engine in three months and then show it off on demo day. You can't build a database in three months and show it off on Demo Day either, but we've funded many database companies. You don't need to have shipped by Demo Day. You just need to have achieved enough to convince investors to give you more money. What "enough" means depends on what you're building. Experienced investors know how muc…

Someone should make a list of successful companies that needed a long time to develop! Knowing they exist is encouraging to people who think about committing that much time.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#107

Post by kyro »

cbhl wrote: post #102
kyro wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that these more visionary, long-term, scientific startups will often require founders of a different demographic than what we're used to seeing (eg. older, more experienced in a given field, maybe with obligations like a spouse and kids), will you guys modify your approach to evaluating applications, more specifically the founding teams?

> older, more experienced in a given field, maybe with obligations like a spouse and kids I'm not convinced that this describes the Thalmic guys at all.

Sure, there is a subset of science-oriented startups that don't require founders who fit that description, but for many of the industries listed in the article to be disrupted, you'd need doctors, lawyers, researchers, biotech engineers -- ie. seasoned experts who understand the intricacies and harsh realities of their fields -- and many of them would certainly fit my description. I'm assuming that the type of startups they're looking to fund include those that try to "fix" these industries, instead of building a product that sits on the periphery -- eg. a healthcare solution to help streamline the claims process vs. an app for patients to record bowel movements.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#110

Post by steve19 »

pg wrote: post #92
hooande wrote: post #85

There's a new sheriff in town. Previously YC treated some of these things, especially "AI" (whatever that means) as third rails. They've funded an extremely broad range of companies, but if you go back and check their past investments most of the areas listed in this RFS are underrepresented. Infrastructure, food and water, biotech, robotics...YC could be reaching much higher in terms of ambition than it has in the p…

You can't build part of an engine in three months and then show it off on demo day. You can't build a database in three months and show it off on Demo Day either, but we've funded many database companies. You don't need to have shipped by Demo Day. You just need to have achieved enough to convince investors to give you more money. What "enough" means depends on what you're building. Experienced investors know how muc…

Most databases I see on HN are a case of take algorithm X and apply it to problem Y through interfaces Z[], which is fantastic if you have problem Y and no good solution. Infinitely scalable nosql db running on raw SSDs is fantastic, for example, but not even close to designing a theoretical spaceship.

Would or could ycombinator fund a company that could only tell you what to expect in 0.25 + n years where n>9 and Boeing, GD and ATK are all working on similar problems?

Post reply on HN