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

Lecture 1 – How to Start a Startup [video]

startupclass.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 191 posts

Re: Lecture 1 – How to Start a Startup [video]

#131

Post by ThomPete »

TimPC wrote: post #79
ThomPete wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there are many other companies not doing what YC recommends who do just fine and that is the point. Advice is great but be careful what you think it teaches you.

Probabalistic advice is different from deterministic advice in that there are exceptions to the rules. Assuming you are the exception as an excuse to avoid the rules generally results in worse performance rather than better. Avoiding the advice entirely without even trying to comprehend why you are the exception seems to border on certifiable to me.

You are trying to prove a point which makes no sense to prove.

There are many ways to success following advice can both take you down the right and the wrong path so can not following it.

There is only one test and that is reality. If you believe otherwise you are fooling yourself imho.

Re: Lecture 1 – How to Start a Startup [video]

#132

Post by ThomPete »

TimPC wrote: post #72
TimPC wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not spending on PR or going to conferences pre-product is highly actionable for a large number of start-ups who do the opposite. Balancing the early team to be able to execute a product people love before scaling a marketing organization is highly actionable as well. The advice on doing a start-up for the right reasons is the most actionable of all.

Yes. This works for some. If I ask you to choose between winning a bet where you roll 1,2,3,4,5 on a d6 or winning a bet where you roll 6, I think the fact that sometimes you win with 6 is true but almost useless.

Problem is that you haven't shown that to be the case. You are just making up your own premises to prove a point you haven't proven.

Re: Lecture 1 – How to Start a Startup [video]

#133

Post by adamt »

hayksaakian wrote: post #52

Sam kept bringing up the 10 year number But: YC (and therefore every YC company) is What startups succeeded after this long (AND were still actually considered startups)

A startup can easily take 10 years from funding to the point where it's purchased or no longer needing more investment. My first business was founded in 1995 before being sold (for decent money - e.g a successful outcome) in 2011. Was the business still a startup after 10 years? I would argue yes. There were still many ups and downs, funding challenges, near-death experiences etc, and our culture was still largely that of a startup business.

Even if you consider the massive tech IPOs and classic success stories, the timeline between incorporation and IPO is pretty long. Microsoft was founded in 1972 and IPO'd in 1986. Google took 9 years from incorporation to IPO, and it was 8 years from Zuck launching 'thefacebook' until the Facebook IPO. I think this backs up Sam's assertion that a startup is a 10 year commitment for a founder.

Re: Lecture 1 – How to Start a Startup [video]

#134

Post by ThomPete »

McDoku wrote: post #104
scobar wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it's not the most efficient use of an entrepreneur's time, and I agree that it definitely doesn't have to be the first step. Working on an idea helps you learn fast, but there was so much I didn't know at first (I still have a lot to learn). I am so grateful that resources like this exist, and I expect this one by YC to have a higher density of quality info in the time spent watching lectures.

“Principles and rules are intended to provide a thinking man with a frame of reference.” -- Karl von Clausewitz

Running a company is not about neither principles nor rules. To the extent it does it's doesn't require a thinking man.

Re: Lecture 1 – How to Start a Startup [video]

#135

Post by e12e »

TimPC wrote: post #96
e12e wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with the idea that working like crazy is likely to net more than a failed startup, a couple of comments: > If you're going to work 80h/week anyway and you're a talented coder: source one contract job billing hourly in London and another in SF. Working out of EST you work 5AM-9PM on a 10-6 in both places -- Billing $80/hr with a good corporate setup and working 4000 hours/year you can get 320,000/year I…

For a second issue, there is a certain perception that start-up founders can produce far more than 40 hours/week of quality architecture and programming. Founding a company involves believing in that at some level. I agree it's not in the category of most people, but neither is start-up founder. If you have a serious belief in your ability to do so, try working like crazy on 3 month contracts and see if you actually…

Perhaps. But working 4000 hours a year, and producing 4000 billable hours a year, aren't the same thing. There's lots of "fluff" that goes into running a business. Sure, if you can show me someone that are able to produce quality code for 4000 hours a year, that'd be great. But sounds like the EA death marches to me. On the other hand those games, bugs and all, do rack in a tidy profit. So maybe I'm wrong, and you can throw shit at people for a year, and still have them come back for more shitty code the next year?

Re: Lecture 1 – How to Start a Startup [video]

#137

Post by e12e »

TimPC wrote: post #94
e12e wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with the idea that working like crazy is likely to net more than a failed startup, a couple of comments: > If you're going to work 80h/week anyway and you're a talented coder: source one contract job billing hourly in London and another in SF. Working out of EST you work 5AM-9PM on a 10-6 in both places -- Billing $80/hr with a good corporate setup and working 4000 hours/year you can get 320,000/year I…

There is a very big difference between actually breaking the law and exploiting the fact that the law is poorly written, and doesn't properly account for a a variety of issues starting to be used by a sizeable portion of all US corporations.

Sure, if you're amoral but don't commit any crimes, you'll go free. If you're amoral, commit a crime and don't get caught, you'll also go free. There's a difference in the eyes of the law, but I don't think abusing the lack of efficient legislation gets you off the hook for doing wrong, though.

Extending this kind of reasoning leads to condoning such great corporate pioneers as Union Carbide and Dow Chemical (although I don't want to equate embezzling public money (via tax evasion) and killing and crippling people).

It does strike me as extremely short sighted when corporations that benefit immensely from government schooling, research etc go to such great lengths to dismantle the institutions that facilitate their access to skilled labour (among other things).

All that said, if you sneak away a million US or so, go for it. It makes no difference what any one individual does as such; I just wanted to demonstrate that I, at least, take issue with the idea that avoiding taxes should be considered on equal footing with launching a ground breaking technology company. I think the two are quite opposite, even if one might evolve into the other.

And I'm not saying that's what you said, the advice just seemed rather glaring in this context.

Re: Lecture 1 – How to Start a Startup [video]

#138

Post by rdlecler1 »

dheer01 wrote: post #124

Disagree completely with the very first opinion expressed - 'Don't do a startup just to do one - do it only if you really want to solve a problem'. India has produced about 3 big ~billion dollar compaines in the recent past - inmobi, flipkart, druvaa. None of the founders really started to 'solve' a problem they were passionate about. What they were really passionate about was just 'starting up' - and based on their…

That could be more survivor bias. I think what he's saying is that if you're going to start something you better be in love with it because there will be bad times and you're going to need to lean on that passion to keep going. If you happen to get lucky and ride a rocketship then this requirement will be less applicable.

Re: Lecture 1 – How to Start a Startup [video]

#139

Post by tim333 »

revorad wrote: post #118
philipDS wrote: post #27

I made some notes while watching/listening. Might include minor errors or misinterpretation on my side 4 critical parts: Idea, Team, Product, Execution 1. Idea -> Good startups take about 10 years -> Startup should feel like an important mission -> Hardest part coming up with great ideas: best look terriblea t the beginning (e.g. search engine, social networks limited to college students without money, a way to stay…

The surprising thing was that Sam's advice about working on a big mission and something "important" seems directly contradicting what pg has been writing for years. Just as trying to think up startup ideas tends to produce bad ones, working on things that could be dismissed as "toys" often produces good ones. When something is described as a toy, that means it has everything an idea needs except being important. It's…

I'm not sure the two view points really contradict. While early microcomputers, BackRub and early Facebook may have seemed like toys I sure some of those folks were aware they could become "important." I think Gates and the Apple guys were aware microcomputers would become widespread and the Google guys were aware better search could be a big deal. I think from interviews Zuckerberg was a bit surprised by how theFacebook took off though. Although subsequently he's got the "For us, it is this vision of connecting the world," thing going on.

Re: Lecture 1 – How to Start a Startup [video]

#140

Post by martinwnet »

jasonkester wrote: post #125
martinwnet wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? 10 years at one of these companies (AmaGooBookSoft) and you're a millionaire?

Yes. Within the first four years, a million dollars will have flowed through your bank account. By 10 years, somebody with a rudimentary ability to save money and a disinclination to purchase sailboats or lease BMWs should have a million dollar net worth after taxes. It's a really good time to in history to know how to program computers.

So you're indicating a $250k salary, is that realistic?
Post reply on HN