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

Startup Playbook

playbook.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 243 posts

Re: Startup Playbook

#161

Post by societylevel »

ekanes wrote: post #142
trdm wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "Reconsider" post was at the top of HN yesterday(1) but it was quickly removed from the front page(2). What a coincidence. DHH's "Reconsider": "Our definition of winning didn’t even include establishing that hallowed sanctity of the natural monopoly!" Sam's "Playbook": "We also ask how the company will one day be a monopoly." (1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10506422 (2) https://news.ycombinator.com/item…

There's plenty of room for both models. Lifestyle businesses are awesome. 100% great. But we wouldn't have society-level upgrades like Uber, Twitter or Apple without venture capital. They just don't work any other way.

I disagree strongly. We have the web because Tim Berners-Lee didn't raise an angel round, so he didn't ask 'how do I monetize' and built an amazing open system. Before him we had CompuServe and other VC backed trash.

VC businesses like Twitter and Uber create centralized points of stagnation that seem great at first, but can't innovate the way open systems can. If Twitter was open we wouldn't be wondering if they'll improve their product or who will be CEO, because there'd be a dozen people innovating on it. Instead, because the network is owned by one group of people, that basically doesn't happen.

We still get that sort of amazing, eco-system creating innovation when a rare innovator declines VC (wikipedia, bitcoin). But when a VC steps in, the only innovations that flourish are those that benefit the capitalist.

Venture capital is, ironically, the enemy of innovation. It doesn't support it; it captures it and restrains it, tying it down with the bonds of capital.

Re: Startup Playbook

#162

Post by SeoxyS »

m_fayer wrote: post #36

I wish there was a similar level and quality of resources for what I think are called lifestyle businesses. By that, I mean product-based businesses with at most a few million in revenue, a 5ish person team, a solid sustainable market position, and no desire to revolutionize any unicorns. I know a lot of people attempting this and they mostly seem to be flying under the radar, or at least have nowhere near the cachet…

> They are often bootstrapped, frequently for lack of other options.

The key thing that people don't understand is that investors only make money if you're trying to "revolutionize unicorns." In other words, so many company fails, that in order for your fund to have positive returns, you need to have an investment return 10,000x. Otherwise, you're losing money.

Companies that don't intend to become massive business are fine; but they are not candidates for venture funding. It's not about being un-sexy, it's that the economics just don't work for venture funding. It's not enough to return the investment. It's not enough to 10x. It's not even enough to 100x.

Re: Startup Playbook

#163

Post by kzhahou »

shocks wrote: post #85
m_fayer wrote: post #36

I wish there was a similar level and quality of resources for what I think are called lifestyle businesses. By that, I mean product-based businesses with at most a few million in revenue, a 5ish person team, a solid sustainable market position, and no desire to revolutionize any unicorns. I know a lot of people attempting this and they mostly seem to be flying under the radar, or at least have nowhere near the cachet…

> lifestyle businesses I really hate this term. It makes it seem like anything that's not a high growth unicorn startup is somehow a failure. It's like a way to give it a label and somehow look down on it. (don't mean to aim this at you - just a general remark)

Totally. It implies a semi-lazy work ethic (do just enough to support yourself+family, plus some left over for fun), and a lack of ambition.

In truth, you gotta bust your ass at a small shop to get your work out there and make $$ from it.

Re: Startup Playbook

#164

Post by sethd »

mattmanser wrote: post #153
joshmlewis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's appropriate in this case. Paul started Gmail inside of Google as a side project. At first most people were not a supporter, including Marissa Mayer and other peers. He was scratching an itch though and eventually got Larry and Sergey on board which helped the cause and eventually grew into what it is today. So with that, there are a lot of similarities into what we'd call a founder today. While financial…

Not really, he did it inside a big company with a nice cushy salary and lots of hardware supporting him. Absolutely ZERO risk. That's not a founder. It's a great product, he did a brilliant thing, but he's not the gmail 'founder'.

Exactly. 'Creator' or 'original developer' would be far more accurate language and prestigious enough on it's own.

Re: Startup Playbook

#165

Post by danieltillett »

Mz wrote: post #154
danieltillett wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is as good excuse as any to link to my rant post that we need a new term for startups that are not focused on VC funding. 1. http://www.tillett.info/2014/11/24/lets-kill-the-term-lifest...

Sort of similar: micheleincalifornia.blogspot.in/2014/03/i-love-lucy-lifestyle-business-that.html

Interesting post, but I am not too sure that it is that similar to my post :)

Re: Startup Playbook

#166

Post by rconti »

davepeck wrote: post #44
m_fayer wrote: post #36

I wish there was a similar level and quality of resources for what I think are called lifestyle businesses. By that, I mean product-based businesses with at most a few million in revenue, a 5ish person team, a solid sustainable market position, and no desire to revolutionize any unicorns. I know a lot of people attempting this and they mostly seem to be flying under the radar, or at least have nowhere near the cachet…

The Basecamp (née 37Signals) folks have been beating this drum for quite some time. DHH posted "Reconsider" to their blog today, actually; it's an entertaining read, if nothing else: https://signalvnoise.com/posts/3972-reconsider Here in Seattle, there's a great community of small software businesses with meaningful profits and impact. We have ties to the broader Seattle startup and technology community, without bein…

Thanks for reposting this, I didn't see it the first time around. Many of the pro-startup stuff I see, in particular this Altman piece, make me subtly uncomfortable, and I couldn't quite put my finger on why. Maybe it's because, while I live in the Valley, I'm a Seattle native. Maybe it's because Sam's younger than I am. Maybe it's because I like the suburbs better than San Francisco proper. Maybe it's because I'm not an Ideas guy; this isn't targeted at me because I have no interest in starting a company and dedicating every second of my waking life to it. That's why I was hesitant to comment at all. "Of course you're uncomfortable with it," the reply to my comment would read, "you non-disruptive loser" it would end.

For those who want a unicorn valuation, I'm sure Sam's piece is great. Or maybe it's not, I don't know.

But what I do know is he kept mentioning how competition never kills startups. It's failure to execute. Why balance burnout and cashflow and hiring and funding in some kind of race to become a unicorn if competitors won't actually kill you?

Why not grow at a reasonable pace, running a reasonable business, that makes reasonable money?

Re: Startup Playbook

#167

Post by rdli »

societylevel wrote: post #161
ekanes wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's plenty of room for both models. Lifestyle businesses are awesome. 100% great. But we wouldn't have society-level upgrades like Uber, Twitter or Apple without venture capital. They just don't work any other way.

I disagree strongly. We have the web because Tim Berners-Lee didn't raise an angel round, so he didn't ask 'how do I monetize' and built an amazing open system. Before him we had CompuServe and other VC backed trash. VC businesses like Twitter and Uber create centralized points of stagnation that seem great at first, but can't innovate the way open systems can. If Twitter was open we wouldn't be wondering if they'll…

I disagree with the broad characterization of VC as an enemy of innovation. There are plenty of VC-backed companies that don't innovate. There are also plenty of non VC-backed companies that don't innovate either.

To name 4: Google, Docker, Tesla, Apple. I'm happy that they were able to raise enough VC that they've innovated and created stuff that I happily use. (Well, I don't own a Tesla. But I've driven one.)

Re: Startup Playbook

#168

Post by [deleted] »

ekanes wrote: post #142
trdm wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "Reconsider" post was at the top of HN yesterday(1) but it was quickly removed from the front page(2). What a coincidence. DHH's "Reconsider": "Our definition of winning didn’t even include establishing that hallowed sanctity of the natural monopoly!" Sam's "Playbook": "We also ask how the company will one day be a monopoly." (1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10506422 (2) https://news.ycombinator.com/item…

There's plenty of room for both models. Lifestyle businesses are awesome. 100% great. But we wouldn't have society-level upgrades like Uber, Twitter or Apple without venture capital. They just don't work any other way.

[deleted]

Re: Startup Playbook

#169

Post by brown9-2 »

ekanes wrote: post #142
trdm wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "Reconsider" post was at the top of HN yesterday(1) but it was quickly removed from the front page(2). What a coincidence. DHH's "Reconsider": "Our definition of winning didn’t even include establishing that hallowed sanctity of the natural monopoly!" Sam's "Playbook": "We also ask how the company will one day be a monopoly." (1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10506422 (2) https://news.ycombinator.com/item…

There's plenty of room for both models. Lifestyle businesses are awesome. 100% great. But we wouldn't have society-level upgrades like Uber, Twitter or Apple without venture capital. They just don't work any other way.

How much venture capital did Apple raise before going public in 1980?

Re: Startup Playbook

#170

Post by squidlogic »

> You want to start with something very simple—as little surface area as possible—and launch it sooner than you’d think

Honest question: does this model apply when your product can't at any point be, for lack of a better word, half-baked?

Say you're making a security product or working on control code for rocket thrusters.

Post reply on HN