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

What Startups Are Really Like

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–128 of 128 posts

Re: What Startups Are Really Like

#121

Post by caffeine »

jlees wrote: post #84
caffeine wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, the wannabe founders reading it are also probably single males who don't understand marriage. We do, however, probably all share a very similar caricature of marriage - and thus the analogy is useful in communicating the bizarre mix of love, hate, co-dependence, shared depression and elation, occasional jealousy and careful maintenance that characterizes the relationship between two guys in a foxhole with la…

it's particularly interesting when your co-founder is female. (or, you're a female co-founder teaming up with a guy.)

That is interesting - have you done this? How did it go?

Re: What Startups Are Really Like

#122

Post by HistoryInAction »

vlad wrote: post #44
patio11 wrote: post #39

I sometimes wonder if the Valley culture doesn't socially construct some of the startup pathologies. For example, startups taking over your life: why does this happen? Is this because startups take over your life and nothing can be done about this? I am skeptical of this: I run a small business, the time demands are rather modest, and I live a life outside of work. I'm surely not uniquely in a position to do this. No…

I've sold shareware for 3 years, similar to what you and many other lone developers I know personally and online are doing (seems like mac, iPhone, and casual games.). The thing is, when a group of developers decide to band together to try to develop something bigger, they all have to hurry to keep the momentum going, as there are more people who might quit due to running out of money, going to grad school, getting m…

I think this is really key, that people take a step forward together as a group, the first person stumbles and from that point on, you're all running to keep from falling. It's about the momentum you build and also the perception of that momentum that keeps the group's morale up and everyone moving forward.

Re: What Startups Are Really Like

#123

Post by tylerhwillis »

pclark wrote: post #4

I'd like to see pg write more about #12: Getting Users.

Agreed -- this is the point that seems underdeveloped in the YC methodology.

Would love help fleshing this out but in my mind, the framework consists of Messages, Channels, and Users. Your job is to test different combinations of those in order to most effectively communicate product/market fit.

When crafting a message, it's important to remember that there's only one question the customer cares about: "How does this help me reach my goals in the quickest and safest possible way?" The more of the thinking you do around this for them, the better your sales will be.

You will find better combinations of message/channel/target over time by developing relationships with your customer; listen to them and watch what they do, you will get important data that you can use to refine your product and to refine your pitch.

Re: What Startups Are Really Like

#124

Post by jlees »

caffeine wrote: post #121
jlees wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's particularly interesting when your co-founder is female. (or, you're a female co-founder teaming up with a guy.)

That is interesting - have you done this? How did it go?

Yes. I'm the XX. It just seems a different dynamic than you'd get between two guys or two women. (Obviously I've not directly experienced the former, but I've seen it from the outside enough - it's kind of the model.)

I'm a kind of bloke-ish girl, but even so I think I worry about feelings and opinions and perceptions a bit more - I bring that aspect of looking at situations to the startup. 'Course, my "job" is to code, whereas my cofounder is meant to be thinking about other people; it gets interesting.

There's also an entirely different dynamic: minority programmes. I took part in Astia, a women-in-business networking and training group. All the contacts from that equate the startup with me (the woman) and my cofounder's not being treated very well by them at all. (There are a few other reasons beyond gender there but it is something I doubt two-guy startups have to face!)

Re: What Startups Are Really Like

#125

Post by maxniederhofer »

arh wrote: post #80
ardit33 wrote: post #7

18. You Get No Respect There was one surprise founders mentioned that I'd forgotten about: that outside the startup world, startup founders get no respect. In social settings, I found that I got a lot more respect when I said, "I worked on Microsoft Office" instead of "I work at a small startup you've never heard of called x." Partly this is because the rest of the world just doesn't get startups, and partly it's yet…

You're not overanalyzing it - you're making generalizations about women that are naive and, in my view, offensive.

The best founder dating hack I've found: stop saying "I have a startup" and start saying "I run my own company."

A short sentence, but there's confidence, power, wealth, passion (and a fair bit of pretentious bs) in there.

Re: What Startups Are Really Like

#126

Post by wglb »

patio11 wrote: post #39

I sometimes wonder if the Valley culture doesn't socially construct some of the startup pathologies. For example, startups taking over your life: why does this happen? Is this because startups take over your life and nothing can be done about this? I am skeptical of this: I run a small business, the time demands are rather modest, and I live a life outside of work. I'm surely not uniquely in a position to do this. No…

It isn't the valley, it is the gig. I have been at the heart of one startup and part of several others. I grew up as part of a small business. These experiences have led me to the goofy conclusion that the notion of a "job" with regular hours is an artifice. In a startup, you are likely doing something that has never been done before--it is very exciting, compelling, and as PG says, there is just too much to do.

I would say that the valley culture is an effect of hosting many startups, not the cause.

Re: What Startups Are Really Like

#127

Post by kngspook »

thesethings wrote: post #42
ardit33 wrote: post #7

18. You Get No Respect There was one surprise founders mentioned that I'd forgotten about: that outside the startup world, startup founders get no respect. In social settings, I found that I got a lot more respect when I said, "I worked on Microsoft Office" instead of "I work at a small startup you've never heard of called x." Partly this is because the rest of the world just doesn't get startups, and partly it's yet…

I'll respond to this from both sides, both as "the girl" and as "the person who gets no respect working for a startup." I am the opposite of your last sentence. A guy I like _has_ to have a dream/extreme passion. In fact, I prefer a-dream-and-broke, to no-dream-and-sweet-day-job. Either way I just like people who are focused and excited about stuff. That comes way before their job. (you hear that dudes in bands who s…

That's true for 99% of jobs/people.

On the jobs front, there are some jobs that (I suspect) have a much higher "cold intro-ing" success rate. "CEO", "Senator", even "Board of Directors" are all probably going to get people interested in you, regardless of who they are. Except these people generally aren't hanging out in bars trying to met people.

Secondly, any time you can get some sort of name recognition in there, I think you will greatly increase your rate of success. A tangential example is that my friends don't give a about what "Steve Jobs" has to say, but they're all very interested if I say "CEO of Apple" instead.

Re: What Startups Are Really Like

#128

Post by conskeptical »

Mostly, I like this article. But... :

"This is the same phenomenon you see with defense contractors or fashion brands. The dumber the customers, the more effort you expend on the process of selling things to them rather than making the things you sell."

At first I thought this was funny and smart... but now I think it's rather glib. "Fashion brands" is almost by definition entirely a marketing exercise... tautology is a pretty boring type of argument. Now... the industry in wearable items is huge and not entirely oriented around marketing at the expense of value...

Defence contracting... I think it's a lot more complicated than dumb customers. For one, there are only a few customers... typically governments. So in a market with a low ratio of buyers to sellers, clearly you have to invest a lot in getting attention. And given the nature of contracts, once you have their attention (and their contract), the profit motive is then to satisfy the contract as close to the line as possible... that is... to skimp and make your product as crap as you can get away with.

Witty insights should really have some grounding in reality, and point the way to other interesting thoughts. This just seems to be a collective geek snigger at the aggressive and the fashionable.

Post reply on HN