Live data from Hacker News

Lecture 1 – How to Start a Startup [video]

startupclass.samaltman.com

141–150 of 191 posts

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

#141
post #75

Just watched the lecture. The first part of the lecture was on the "Idea", and I want to give an alternative approach. First, do I believe that what Altman describes can work and is what he has seen has worked? Definitely yes. Second, is that all that can work? I don't think so. Third, do I suggest that the alternative approach I describe here will be common and/or always better than what Altman describes? No. Someti…

Your way of thinking is interesting, but in all of the examples you give, the execution was vastly more difficult than the idea. Furthermore, most of them weren't commercial products and couldn't have been done by a startup.

> the execution was vastly more difficult than the idea

But the execution was fully routine, that is, low risk.

> couldn't have been done by a startup

Right. But maybe in the future, and because of my main point: It's fully possible for the planning to be rock solid and lead to a successful product with low risk. That's the main point -- it really is possible, indeed, in applied science and engineering, nearly standard.

That the examples were not commercial products need not detract much from the main point -- again, we can plan just on paper and have a low risk, high payoff project.

But now we have enhanced opportunities: The math I assumed can be cheap, for someone with an appropriate math background, dirt cheap, fast, fun, easy, and low risk. Then for the product, I assumed that that is just software. So the guy who does the math also does the software -- we're still in the low budget area. Next, the product needs computer hardware, but now enough computer hardware to execute 100,000 lines of code can be less than $2000.

If the product is just a Web site supported by ads, then for just a focused start, where I agree with Altman, might do quite well: E.g., maybe the start up sends Web pages of 400,000 bits per page. Each page has on average 5 ads. From the Mary Meeker data at KPCB, maybe get paid $2 per 1000 ads displayed (CPM = $2). Maybe have an Internet connection with 25 million bits per second upload bandwidth. Maybe half fill that 24 x 7. Then the monthly revenue would be

2 * 5 * 25 * 106 * 3600 * 24 * 30 / ( 2 * 400,000 * 1000 ) = 810,000

dollars. That's enough to fuel organic growth.

So, on average, how many Web pages sent per second?

25 * 106 / ( 2 * 400,000 ) = 31.25

Depending on the project, that might take several computers at $2000 each, but if early on send just 1 page a second, and for some projects early on one computer could do that, and get monthly revenue of

1 * 2 * 5 * 3600 * 24 * 30 / ( 1000 ) = 25,920

dollars so that in one month have free cash flow enough to buy computers enough to send 31.25 Web pages a second.

The 31.25 Web pages a second is a lot of Web pages per month, is

31.25 * 3600 * 24 * 30 = 81,000,000

So how to justify this? Well, as we assumed, the first good or a much better solution for the problem is a "must have". The problem has been selected so that we can attack it essentially just with math. We do the math, as theorems and proofs, and check the proofs carefully -- fairly routine and low chances of errors for a well trained pure/applied mathematician. We convert the math to software and check the software -- again, fairly routine with low risk of errors. Now we have the product, and it is a "must have". Then we go to Altman's lecture and use what he said about viral growth. And we use the assumption that the problem is such that many people want the solution (I hope I made that assumption clear also). What's left to do? Get the checks from the ad networks. Yes, very much do need to meet the assumptions, find the solution, write the software, etc., and if can't then return to (1) and try again.

Once I had a project that looked pretty good on the alternative approach, but the software was going to be too much work because I'd need to write a lot of code for a lot of data collection and with too little information about what the APIs and interfaces were or would be. So, I dropped the project. That is, back to step (1).

You are correct that nearly all the successful, famous projects I listed were, yes, routine, but expensive to execute. And for a start up, we need projects that are cheap to execute. Do such projects exist? I believe so.

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

#143

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…

They addressed these points directly in the lecture.

Sam's message here is to try and shift the balance back to where it should be. PG says that they seemed like toys. Not that they were toys. I think what they've said is very well aligned. Many people in the past few years have totally dismissed having a good idea as being important.

Similarly, Dustin Moskovitz is just trying to counterbalance the way over-romanticized view of startups in our culture. Many people get into startups for the wrong reasons, and anyone convinced not to by what he has said is probably much better off.

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

#144
post #100
post #75

Just watched the lecture. The first part of the lecture was on the "Idea", and I want to give an alternative approach. First, do I believe that what Altman describes can work and is what he has seen has worked? Definitely yes. Second, is that all that can work? I don't think so. Third, do I suggest that the alternative approach I describe here will be common and/or always better than what Altman describes? No. Someti…

This was kind of hard to read, but I think you've missed the point. You seem to be talking about developing new technologies . Sam is talking about commercialising them. There's a big difference. In almost every of the cases you listed the technology was built in response to customer demand.

Yes, there are differences, and you mentioned some. But I believe that the alternative approach I described can work for commercial products and where the founder observes the need. Indeed, as I mentioned, the approach has a severe filter; if the founder can't observe a need where the first good or a much better solution will be a "must have", then back to (1) and try again.

Getting an idea all the way through the filter might be challenging. But, it seems to me that for an idea that does get through the filter, execution should be routine and project success quite likely.

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

#146
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They addressed these points directly in the lecture. Sam's message here is to try and shift the balance back to where it should be. PG says that they seemed like toys. Not that they were toys. I think what they've said is very well aligned. Many people in the past few years have totally dismissed having a good idea as being important. Similarly, Dustin Moskovitz is just trying to counterbalance the way over-romantici…

Is it about balance or the truth?

Of course, eventually you want to do something important. But since we are talking about starting a startup, I just can't see how sama's advice aligns with this, for example:

I think the way to use these big ideas is not to try to identify a precise point in the future and then ask yourself how to get from here to there, like the popular image of a visionary. You'll be better off if you operate like Columbus and just head in a general westerly direction. Don't try to construct the future like a building, because your current blueprint is almost certainly mistaken. Start with something you know works, and when you expand, expand westward.

The popular image of the visionary is someone with a clear view of the future, but empirically it may be better to have a blurry one.

http://www.paulgraham.com/ambitious.html

I read Thiel's book and class notes, in which again he talks about having a vision and big idea. Sounds great until you stop to think about how Thiel's own startup Paypal came about.

Quoting Max Levchin from Founders at work:

I think we didn't know what we were doing. I think the hallmark of a really good entrepreneur is that you're not really going to build one specific company. The goal—at least the way I think about entrepreneurship—is you realize one day that you can't really work for anyone else. You have to start your own thing. It almost doesn't matter what that thing is. We had six different business plan changes, and then the last one was PayPal.

If that one didn't work out, if we still had the money and the people, obviously we would not have given up. We would have iterated on the business model and done something else. I don't think there was ever any clarity as to who we were until we knew it was working. By then, we'd figured out our PR pitch and told everyone what we do and who we are. But between the founding and the actual PayPal, it was just this tug-of-war where it was like, "We're trying this, this week." Every week you go to investors and say, "We're doing this, exactly this. We're really focused. We're going to be huge." The next week you're like, "That was a lie."

Paypal didn't follow any of Thiel's recipe for a great startup:

They didn't start out with a very clear plan or big idea. They pivoted lots. They had intense competition.

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

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Again, yes. You can choose not to believe that, but it's not in your best interest to do so.

The market really is this good.

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

#148
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 theFace…

It's easy to write grand vision statements in retrospect. At the time though, Page and Brin said looking at Sean Parker, "We'll never be as famous as him", as per a story Ron Conway once told at Startup school.

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

#149
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As there is a high failure rate in startups it is very important to know though whether you are made for that kind of world. True, you'll learn a lot with every failure but not all of us want to spend years and years on miscarriages.

But then why would you do a course on how to start a startup?

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

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're indicating a $250k salary, is that realistic?

Again, yes. You can choose not to believe that, but it's not in your best interest to do so. The market really is this good.

Anyone have a link that backs this up?
Post reply on HN