Live data from Hacker News

Before the Startup

paulgraham.com

101–110 of 169 posts

Re: Before the Startup

#101
post #52
post #47

So this is the third counterintuitive thing to remember about startups: starting a startup is where gaming the system stops working. Gaming the system may continue to work if you go to work for a big company. Depending on how broken the company is, you can succeed by sucking up to the right people, giving the impression of productivity, and so on. [2] But that doesn't work with startups. There is no boss to trick, on…

How do you bootstrap a company that requires significant R&D before an MVP can be shipped? Or for that matter one that has initial infrastructure costs, or one would only be affordable if there's an economy of scale? This is armchair quarterbacking, of course, I'm not an entrepreneur and do not pretend to be one. Patio11 has a lot of interesting and relevant things to say, but I would hate to live in a world where en…

Are you under the impression that most interesting R&D is done at venture-backed startups?

What about universities and government funded projects?

Are you also under the impression that most interesting R&D need significant funding?

Re: Before the Startup

#102
post #5

one guaranteed way to turn your mind into the type that has good startup ideas is to get yourself to the leading edge of some technology—to cause yourself, as Paul Buchheit put it, to "live in the future." When you reach that point, ideas that will seem to other people uncannily prescient will seem obvious to you. You may not realize they're startup ideas, but you'll know they're something that ought to exist. I thin…

Reading a bit of history you usually notice how famous painters, and other artists, lived close to each other. The same is true of scientists, I am sure.

Re: Before the Startup

#103
For me, reading Paul Graham's writings has taken on something of the flavor of a Phillip Roth novel. I'm committing voyeurism, watching the inner life of the protagonist, PG, mature. There's an arc to the narrative.

Around the turn of the millennium, the brashness born of 1990's success transformed his writing from youthfully exuberant technical expertise [2] toward experienced practical advice [3]. In Before the Startup we meet up with PG again just as he walks back into the ring of the public light. His load has shifted, advice must be sage: consistent with the gestures of hands that have firmly held the tiger's tail twice. Yet, despite the years, PG's youthful earnestness remains intact.

Recently, because I've seen ViaWeb and HN trotted out as contemporary examples of successful uses of Lisp in business, I've wondered how much of Beating the Averages describes what really happened and how the older PG would ascribe the success of his first startup.

Was Lisp really the secret sauce? Would it have mattered if PG and Morris ground out updates in Perl? Will there be an immodest greybearded admission that, in hindsight, it really was the people?

Autobiography is not so much an author's way of gaming history, but rather gaming the business of history. And that, the gaming of "the business of x" is the central theme of Before the Startup. What Graham is arguing is that a person can't game their way into running a successful startup. He doesn't deny that a person can successfully game the business of startups...there are people who can sell Yelp for Dogs to investors sufficiently to purchase barker.com.

No longer YC's designated spokesmodel, PG is in the agora pitching eudaemonia, the not-as-seen-on-TV good life, to the youths of the valley. His life's example is not the celebrity brought about by business success. His advice is "stay earnest."

[1] yes.

[2] On Lisp

[3] Beating the Averages

Re: Before the Startup

#104
post #20

It seems odd not to acknowledge that most successful startups are not created like this. Very few are. Perhaps only the truly great ones take the organic personal project route. Apple, Google, Facebook, and YC are among the handful one could list out of thousands of startups. Most successful startups are the result of ambitious people working hard to come up with good ideas. PG has explicitly said he started Viaweb t…

As an investor, you'd rather fund Apple, Google, or Facebook than Viaweb.

Re: Before the Startup

#105
post #47

So this is the third counterintuitive thing to remember about startups: starting a startup is where gaming the system stops working. Gaming the system may continue to work if you go to work for a big company. Depending on how broken the company is, you can succeed by sucking up to the right people, giving the impression of productivity, and so on. [2] But that doesn't work with startups. There is no boss to trick, on…

I think you may be attributing to me some things which I don't recall having written.

Re: Before the Startup

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can easily start a company that requires significant R&D: start with consulting; then one day sell the product you want to make with the right license and timeline, then make it and sell it to everyone. Look at Space X, they were making money wayyy before they were igniting rockets.

I don't think you could pick a worse example. Space X was founded by a billionaire, who injected 100M USD from his own pocket, and then took 20M from his buddies. That's as far as it can get from what people imagine when they read "bootstrapping".

Space X is just an available metaphor.

You could say "I want to build colonies on Mars, I just need 10 Trillion in capital!" or you could say "I want to build colonies on Mars, how can I get there even though I only have 1 / 100,000th of the capital?

The same goes for all these startups that think they need 2 million or 10 million dollars to start. You need skills and $100 to start. Someone mentioned distributed systems as an "unbootstrapable product" which is total baloney. Start by identifying clients that would buy your product once it exists and help them distribute their systems. Build up your team and use your spare cycles to build out the features you think you're going to need but currently can't find anyone to pay you to build them.

If you are still hung up on Space X starting with $100m, let me ask you this. Say Elon had lost it all on Telsa and he was starting with a loan from one of his friends to start Space X. How small would the loan have to be for you to confidently say that Space X would never get people on Mars? To me, the size of the loan only dictates the speed of reaching the ultimate goal.

Re: Before the Startup

#107
There's a lot of good in this essay. I'm going to attack the weak point, even though I agree with most of it.

So this is the third counterintuitive thing to remember about startups: starting a startup is where gaming the system stops working. Gaming the system may continue to work if you go to work for a big company. Depending on how broken the company is, you can succeed by sucking up to the right people, giving the impression of productivity, and so on. [2] But that doesn't work with startups. There is no boss to trick, only users, and all users care about is whether your product does what they want.

Then, to his credit, he admits...

The dangerous thing is, faking does work to some degree on investors. If you're super good at sounding like you know what you're talking about, you can fool investors for at least one and perhaps even two rounds of funding. But it's not in your interest to. The company is ultimately doomed. All you're doing is wasting your own time riding it down.

Okay, so we have something to chew on.

First of all, investors are gameable if you're good at social proof arbitrage (that is, lying about competing interest in order to set off a "herd mentality" and become a VC darling). I don't have an ethical problem with social proof arbitrage. It's what you have to do if you want to raise VC and you're not from a very wealthy family.

Is the system gameable? It depends on what your objectives are. You can't build a successful company if you make something no one wants. That's clear. However, let's be cynical and realistic here. Do you care about the success of "the company" or of your own career?

If your investors don't like you but you build a great company, they'll give it (and most of the rewards) to someone they do like. If your investors like you and your company fails, they'll arrange a favorable acqui-hire. This means that you collected $120k for each year that the business was alive, and got a 3x salary bump (plus a 7-figure hiring bonus) in your next job. Or, they might make you a VC.

The part that determines whether your product is Google or Clinkle is difficult, if not impossible, to fake. We don't even understand how many of those random variables work. There's some part that's performance- and skill-related and a large part that's luck, and no one knows where to draw the lines. However, the startup career is immensely gameable, and that's true the whole way to the top (partner-level ranks in VC firms).

Re: Before the Startup

#108

I'm a college kid, started a startup with my roommate and sold it to our university. We did everything wrong, but learned so much that I could write a thesis on it. If I had to do it again and change ONE thing, though, it would be one of PG's central points in this post: get to know your users. We knew who they were at a big picture (UofM students) but did not do a good job honing on on specific 'personality types' t…

What did your product do?

Re: Before the Startup

#109
post #47

So this is the third counterintuitive thing to remember about startups: starting a startup is where gaming the system stops working. Gaming the system may continue to work if you go to work for a big company. Depending on how broken the company is, you can succeed by sucking up to the right people, giving the impression of productivity, and so on. [2] But that doesn't work with startups. There is no boss to trick, on…

I think you may be attributing to me some things which I don't recall having written.

can we pretend you wrote them though? It would make me think even more highly of you :P

Re: Before the Startup

#110
The magic formula, it seems, is "become an expert in something that matters (what other people want or need to be done) usually in a non-CS realm, but you must "love it" and then apply CS with someone who could program/engineer better than you". At least it resembles a pg + rtm pair.)

The question is not like "what code in which language should I write", The fact that Zukerberg wrote a yet-another-bunch-of-webforms in PHP doesn't mean that you should do it too. It isn't about PHP at all, it is about being in a right time in a right place and being able to code some PHP. (the facebook really began after it has been noticed by a "serious guys" from Harvard alumni).

So, it boils down to a very few words - learn some fundamental principles of CS, then become an expert in a field (follow the money), being an expert you would "see" opportunities which cannot be seen by an ignorant observer outside the field. Then try, approach the problem, describe it, discuss, try to write a naive prototype (to discover the difficulties and lack of appropriate knowledge) and then try to make a team. btw, other people in the field would quickly grasp and validate your idea, and if it is really good, they would find money for you, because the result will be beneficial for them.

Another key idea (to which having children is a nice metaphor, at least to those who have no siblings) is that one have to go into unknown. There is no other way. It should be unknown and first time, like any learning on-the-go in any field. We start totally ignorant, and then we learn by doing.

And about gaming the system (another polite-correct name for cheating) - one cannot game yourself. You are either good at what you do or not.

   Dagny, there's nothing of any importance in life - except how well you do your work
This has been written half century ago, and still true (no matter how naive it sounds), especially for startups.
Post reply on HN