Last time I looked YC had a 2% admission rate, plus is a very successful program (arguably the best one), not sure why it needs promotion.
Thoughts on Startup School
101–110 of 125 posts
Re: Thoughts on Startup School
#102Re: Thoughts on Startup School
#103Thanks for this story, I've been really confused about things like startup school myself. I guess I went to a seminar or two about how to think about a startup way back when I first realized I was definitely doing it wrong, but the idea of being around a thousand other wanna be entrepreneurs has always been intimidating and anxiety inducing to me.
I feel like it just makes me feel even less qualified to do what I'm doing, since I'm not a socialite. Sure, I can be friendly and engaged and talkative for short stretches, but the idea of being around a thousand excited people trying to network is just really depressing.
And I think after just reading/skimming the lean startup and steps to the epiphany, there's really not much to learn from lectures... small groups and an expert discussing specifics sure, but such large groups have to trend towards generalities which I just find exhausting.
Really, I'm at my happiest when I'm in the lab building and testing things, and at my least happy when I'm feeling like I need to be constantly "on" selling my ideas. I assume lots of other technical founders feel similarly... I can deal with sales, and I can deal with negotiations, but even when I really do enjoy hearing other people's stories it gets emotionally and intellectually taxing fast!
Re: Thoughts on Startup School
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trevor: Thank you for replying. I hope you (and Jessica, and everybody else involved with Startup School) don't take what I've written personally -- I nearly didn't post it for exactly that reason, but decided in the end that you're all grown-ups who won't be offended by honest criticism. ;-) And thank you for your comments when we met -- talking to you was the highlight of the weekend for me (I didn't mention it in…
I feel there's something inconsistent to be reconciled here. On one hand single-founder startups don't get as big, which is a bad thing. On the other, writing code for 8 years as a single founder is right about the definition of doing things that don't scale, which is a good thing. So you can't say Colin running Tarsnap as a single founder for 8 years was bad for Tarsnap. But it also sounds like unexplored terrain. T…
"Single-founder startups don't get as big, which is a bad thing"
Setting aside the question of whether this is true, why is it bad to have a smaller business? I can think of several advantages, not the least of which is the luxury of remaining the sole developer.
It's weird that you spend the comment telling Colin what he's doing wrong, and then ask him at the end what he wants.
Re: Thoughts on Startup School
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maciej Ceglowski, you either can't tolerate the thing (Maciej) What critical things did he say about YC?
You sound like someone who has made the mistake of not following @Pinboard.
Alright, I'll start "following" him. Still, very curious -- what specifically has he said of YC? Doing a ctrl-f on yc|ycombinator on his twitter page didn't reveal much, so still in the dark I am a little bit.
Re: Thoughts on Startup School
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel there's something inconsistent to be reconciled here. On one hand single-founder startups don't get as big, which is a bad thing. On the other, writing code for 8 years as a single founder is right about the definition of doing things that don't scale, which is a good thing. So you can't say Colin running Tarsnap as a single founder for 8 years was bad for Tarsnap. But it also sounds like unexplored terrain. T…
If the goal of Tarsnap is to grow, the north star is Tarsnap's growth rate. Well, Tarsnap's goal isn't to grow. I mean, growth is nice, but I'd be perfectly happy if it stayed at its current size; my priority is to have a good product.
I deeply admire anyone who does business like you.
Re: Thoughts on Startup School
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel there's something inconsistent to be reconciled here. On one hand single-founder startups don't get as big, which is a bad thing. On the other, writing code for 8 years as a single founder is right about the definition of doing things that don't scale, which is a good thing. So you can't say Colin running Tarsnap as a single founder for 8 years was bad for Tarsnap. But it also sounds like unexplored terrain. T…
If the goal of Tarsnap is to grow, the north star is Tarsnap's growth rate. Well, Tarsnap's goal isn't to grow. I mean, growth is nice, but I'd be perfectly happy if it stayed at its current size; my priority is to have a good product.
I am curious; how do you come to the conclusion that staying small is better than growing the product/business and taking over as some suggest?
Re: Thoughts on Startup School
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Startups that get big have more than one founder." What? At best it's correlation, not causality, but besides the point... coercive already has a successful business operating for several years. How on earth someone coming in to his existing/operational/profitable business years after its inception could or should be considered a "founder" is such an abuse of the word as to be nonsensical.
coercive I have to say, I love this autocorrect.
whoops! ;)
Re: Thoughts on Startup School
#109> in fact I had decided against attending many previous such events due to the cost (in both time and money) of travelling down to the San Francisco bay area
It may not be my place to say, but...Is anyone else here....irked that a singular genius like Colin, with as impressive a product as Tarsnap still has to worry about money? Especially considering that said worry could easily be ameliorated by yielding to even one of patio11's entreaties?
Re: Thoughts on Startup School
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the goal of Tarsnap is to grow, the north star is Tarsnap's growth rate. Well, Tarsnap's goal isn't to grow. I mean, growth is nice, but I'd be perfectly happy if it stayed at its current size; my priority is to have a good product.
I am curious; how do you come to the conclusion that staying small is better than growing the product/business and taking over as some suggest?
I said that Tarsnap's goal wasn't to grow, not that Tarsnap's goal was to not grow. What it comes down to is that Tarsnap is large enough now to be easily self-sustaining (it pays me more than I would expect to earn anywhere else), and my goal from the start was "build the service I want to use", not "become rich".