21–30 of 129 posts
Mainly because I watch a lot of alternative content and listen to podcasts, and I want a way to support what I like. It wasn't an original idea but with awesome execution I think it could had worked.
Getting into YC or raising money isn't success. And trying an idea out for a few months before giving up on it isn't failure.
Building a success startup takes a long long time. Years. Lots of years. Maybe the idea is bad, but giving up on it after a couple of months really proves nothing. All it has proven is that the founders are the type of people that are readily willing to bail out at any moment, and that is a quality that doesn't lead to startup success. The "nightmare" described in this post is a joke compared to the depths some highly successful startups have gone through. Techcrunch wrote a bad story about me? Really? Try having to decide whether to lay off people to make payroll or having spent years on an idea only to still be not sure if it is working on not.
Am I missing something here? You can get $$$ and top quality advice for an _idea_ and then just turn around and say "bored now - let's do something else"? And then, so it seems, when that idea runs out you just say "uhhh... let's do this instead!" So, what are the YC people investing in? Two guys who seem pretty smart? I appreciate that you might need to pivot from "a social network for dogs" to "a social network for…
The only part you're missing is that PG has said many times in the past that they invest mostly in the team and that many teams that go through YC end up changing their idea slightly or completely. So the beginning of this situation doesn't seem very unusual, just that they never actually figured it out.
Am I missing something here? You can get $$$ and top quality advice for an _idea_ and then just turn around and say "bored now - let's do something else"? And then, so it seems, when that idea runs out you just say "uhhh... let's do this instead!" So, what are the YC people investing in? Two guys who seem pretty smart? I appreciate that you might need to pivot from "a social network for dogs" to "a social network for…
Am I understanding that right? Twice in two years this guy took other people's money for something and then quit?
I know we are in another bubble, but this really worries me. What, as an industry, are we doing if recent graduates see their basket of choices as "a) go to grad school, b) work at a big tech company, or c) attend a prestigious startup accelerator"?
On the one hand, I love entrepreneurs, and think that anybody who feels the calling should be supported in doing it. But on the other, I really feel like it is a calling, like being an artist or a religious missionary. People who are the kind of people who will be happy taking one of life's default choices should probably just go do that. If people are becoming entrepreneurs because they see it as another convenient, high-status, high-reward option, then I think we're doing something pretty wrong.
And kudos to Charlie Guo for being honest like this. It's sure not easy, but it's very valuable to the rest of us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only part you're missing is that PG has said many times in the past that they invest mostly in the team and that many teams that go through YC end up changing their idea slightly or completely. So the beginning of this situation doesn't seem very unusual, just that they never actually figured it out.
I can accept this rationale for investing in teams over ideas, but when did "pivoting" go from meaning "a modest change in direction" (e.g. switching the target market for your SASS product from consumers to enterprise, or making what was initially a secondary feature a primary one) to "start over from scratch with an entirely unrelated idea"? Seems like another term is needed--"flailing" perhaps?
Am I missing something here? You can get $$$ and top quality advice for an _idea_ and then just turn around and say "bored now - let's do something else"? And then, so it seems, when that idea runs out you just say "uhhh... let's do this instead!" So, what are the YC people investing in? Two guys who seem pretty smart? I appreciate that you might need to pivot from "a social network for dogs" to "a social network for…
The fully loaded market rate for "two guys who seem pretty smart" in Silicon Valley is somewhere between $200,000 to $300,000 per year -- at regular day jobs. Even boring regular employers invest a ton of money in people just based on an interview.
Remember this, when thinking about all of the investors who are always demanding tons of up-front proof and traction from founders. Regular day jobs generally require you to do nothing up front, except showing up to an interview. Firing within the first year is relatively rare. In many ways, regular day job employers are a lot less risk averse than investors!
Am I missing something here? You can get $$$ and top quality advice for an _idea_ and then just turn around and say "bored now - let's do something else"? And then, so it seems, when that idea runs out you just say "uhhh... let's do this instead!" So, what are the YC people investing in? Two guys who seem pretty smart? I appreciate that you might need to pivot from "a social network for dogs" to "a social network for…
I had similar questions based on this: "In college I had started an ed-tech company, ClassOwl, that raised nearly a million in seed funding. My two cofounders and I attended StartX, an incubator affiliated with Stanford, but ultimately decided to finish our degrees instead of pursuing the startup dream." Am I understanding that right? Twice in two years this guy took other people's money for something and then quit?…
For example, a portion of the people who win $30k/year National Science Foundation graduate research fellowships take a year or two of the funding, and then decide a PhD isn't for them. Some of those people, after taking $30k or $60k in PhD fellowship funding, leave grad school to start a company instead. I don't think it should be that surprising that people might go the other direction as well, taking $30k in Y Combinator funding, trying a startup for a bit, and then deciding to leave the startup and go to grad school instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only part you're missing is that PG has said many times in the past that they invest mostly in the team and that many teams that go through YC end up changing their idea slightly or completely. So the beginning of this situation doesn't seem very unusual, just that they never actually figured it out.
I can accept this rationale for investing in teams over ideas, but when did "pivoting" go from meaning "a modest change in direction" (e.g. switching the target market for your SASS product from consumers to enterprise, or making what was initially a secondary feature a primary one) to "start over from scratch with an entirely unrelated idea"? Seems like another term is needed--"flailing" perhaps?
You're completely correct that the original meaning of the term was specific. Eric Ries originally wrote, "I want to introduce the concept of the pivot, the idea that successful startups change directions but stay grounded in what they've learned. They keep one foot in the past and place one foot in a new possible future. Over time, this pivoting may lead them far afield from their original vision, but if you look carefully, you'll be able to detect common threads that link each iteration. By contrast, many unsuccessful startups simply jump outright from one vision to something completely different. These jumps are extremely risky, because they don't leverage the validated learning about customers that came before." [1]
Sadly, the term is getting killed by Semantic Diffusion [2]. Precisely because people want to dignify their flailing with a fancy-sounding word.
[1] http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/06/pivot-dont-jump...
Usually it takes six months from coming up with an idea to researching it and getting to the point where I believe in it.
Most of the time, you start with only a vague notion and have to further develop that into something concrete.
No wonder that it didn't turn out well for them doing it under pressure in just a few days time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only part you're missing is that PG has said many times in the past that they invest mostly in the team and that many teams that go through YC end up changing their idea slightly or completely. So the beginning of this situation doesn't seem very unusual, just that they never actually figured it out.
I can accept this rationale for investing in teams over ideas, but when did "pivoting" go from meaning "a modest change in direction" (e.g. switching the target market for your SASS product from consumers to enterprise, or making what was initially a secondary feature a primary one) to "start over from scratch with an entirely unrelated idea"? Seems like another term is needed--"flailing" perhaps?