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

Startup advice, briefly

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 143 posts

Re: Startup advice, briefly

#101

Post by DenisM »

steven2012 wrote: post #91

The last point that should be made: Even if you follow all of the above, there is a 90% probability you will still fail. Startup success is still largely dictated by luck.

Luck is random, but not uncontrollable. Successful people manufacture their own luck: live in the place where things happen, go to places where right people hang out, make yourself known and useful to well-connected people, attack the market where chances are tilted in your favor, be approachable, partner with people different from you so as to maximize your "luck surface area", the list goes on and on.

Chance favors the prepared mind.

Re: Startup advice, briefly

#102

Post by larrys »

danko wrote: post #86
rcorin wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with this isn't that the advice is obvious, but rather obvious _only in hindsight_: "The best startup ideas are the ones that seem like bad ideas but are good ideas.", "the fast-growing market is going to be important but others dismiss it as unimportant" these aren't obvious at all before they happen, not just for first-time startup people but everyone.

Exactly. One could easily come up with a corollary: "The worst startup ideas are the ones that seem like bad ideas and really are." Which is a truism that probably applies to most startup ideas.

""The worst startup ideas are the ones that seem like bad ideas and really are."

Based on the original thought "The best startup ideas are the ones that seem like bad ideas but are good ideas."

That one for sure is culled from a list of outsized successes (because they didn't make sense or had a large amount of barriers to success) but doesn't provide balance in the sense that bad ideas are more typically bad ideas. VC's like to hide behind this type of thinking often but they get around it by making bets on many companies whereas the person starting their own company has more of a reason to worry about the downside of a stupid idea.

I don't think for a second that it makes any sense that "best startup ideas are ones that seem like bad ideas but are good ideas".

Facebook wasn't a bad idea

Linkedin wasn't a bad idea

Amazon wasn't a bad idea (selling books to start)

So how do you define "bad idea"?

Is airbnb a bad idea because "who would want to rent out their apartment to strangers"? Or is it a bad idea because "you will never get regulatory clearance" (ditto for Uber).

Re: Startup advice, briefly

#103

Post by marcosdumay »

mrkurt wrote: post #65
jacquesm wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- control your costs - spread your risk (no single customer > 20% of your business) - save for the next crisis when the money is good - focus - cashflow beats cash - find your peers and establish relationships - know your strengths, more importantly, know where you're weak - working overtime is no substitute for bad planning - every deal should make money - better 10 small deals in the pocket than one huge one that y…

Those are pretty reasonable rules for "startups" too.

Except that financed companies seeking high growth may for a while abide by "cash creates cash flow", "deals that don't make money can still make you grow", and "spend on growth fast, so you'll be bigger than the next crisis".

Extremely risky, but those seem to be the norm on companies that get huge.

Re: Startup advice, briefly

#104

Post by AndrewKemendo »

vinceguidry wrote: post #97
Spooky23 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that a startup isn't a small business. Your venture backers want you to be hungry -- financial stability for you lowers the probability of a 50x exit!

VCs actually select against financially stable founders?

From what I have seen, yes. Stable = complacent and comfortable in their mind.

On the brink = Will work 100 hrs a week and must succeed to survive.

Makes sense from that narrow perspective, but I think that only works in cases where hustle is the majority of the work. Come to think of it, the majority of investors are only interested in problems which are fairly low tech but require a lot of marketing/hustle.

Re: Startup advice, briefly

#105

Post by pronoiac »

ollieglass wrote: post #73
graphene wrote: post #70

Figure out a way to get users at scale (i.e. bite the bullet and learn how sales and marketing work). Any pointers for reading material on this?

From Andrew Chen: "There’s only a few ways to scale user growth, and here’s the list" http://andrewchen.co/theres-only-a-few-ways-to-scale-user-gr...

Huh. There's a pop-up that blocks the text, and I couldn't even dismiss it from full screen - I had to zoom out first. And I couldn't leave a comment there.

Re: Startup advice, briefly

#106

Post by santoriv »

larrys wrote: post #102
danko wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. One could easily come up with a corollary: "The worst startup ideas are the ones that seem like bad ideas and really are." Which is a truism that probably applies to most startup ideas.

""The worst startup ideas are the ones that seem like bad ideas and really are." Based on the original thought "The best startup ideas are the ones that seem like bad ideas but are good ideas." That one for sure is culled from a list of outsized successes (because they didn't make sense or had a large amount of barriers to success) but doesn't provide balance in the sense that bad ideas are more typically bad ideas.…

This is just my opinion but

Facebook was a bad idea because MySpace had already won.

LinkedIn was a mediocre idea b/c it would be very difficult to get enough user adoption to be valuable.

Amazon was a mediocre idea b/c people want to go to a bookstore and look at a book before they buy it (usually). Also, that business has no moat (anyone could sell books online).

You're right though - ideas that seem bad are more typically bad ideas. I still think Twitter is a bad idea. :-P

Really the corollary to this is that all the obviously good ideas are already being executed by huge corporations with massive resources and its very hard to compete when you are severely outgunned.

Also, it seems like it's important to have an understanding of the domain that is somewhat counterintuitive and contradicts the common understanding that people have about it.

Also, be lucky. Your "understanding" might be insanity.

Re: Startup advice, briefly

#107

Post by 31reasons »

DenisM wrote: post #101
steven2012 wrote: post #91

The last point that should be made: Even if you follow all of the above, there is a 90% probability you will still fail. Startup success is still largely dictated by luck.

Luck is random, but not uncontrollable. Successful people manufacture their own luck: live in the place where things happen, go to places where right people hang out, make yourself known and useful to well-connected people, attack the market where chances are tilted in your favor, be approachable, partner with people different from you so as to maximize your "luck surface area", the list goes on and on. Chance favors…

All the things you described can also increase your bad-luck surface area. You are confusing bad-luck with inaction, which is not the same. You might end-up meeting wrong people, work on wrong ideas, hire wrong people, get wrong publicity, wrong timing etc etc.

Re: Startup advice, briefly

#110

Post by chetanahuja »

"The best startup ideas are the ones that seem like bad ideas but are good ideas."

Great tip. So it's easy then. Find an idea that seems like a bad idea but is good. Also, if an idea seems like a good idea... throw it away. It's shit. Find one that seems bad. But is good.

Post reply on HN