171–180 of 321 posts
I think this would be a good metric. I mean think about it, if you're a startup and your only strategy is to burn money making an awesome product that's free, how on earth are you going to return 1000x on investment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems to suggest the decision to fund has less to do with the idea and more to do with the founders. We already knew that. Does this also mean that the "big winners" will not come merely from a pool of what appear to be bad ideas, but from a subset of that pool: bad ideas put forth by founders the VC thinks are impressive? That too, seems somewhat obvious. Taking it one step further, can you separate the "idea"…
Yes -- this is why, for example, we (at A16Z) have such a strong bias towards technical founders with strong personalities, typically with a background of accomplishment of some reasonably strong form (even if very young). You have to screen at the founder level since there are too many bad ideas from less qualified founders otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off-topic, but something I've been chewing on lately: what's it like to have your every written (or spoken!) word analyzed by a bunch of people? Esp. people that you end up having some form of contact with. It seems like it would be difficult to just have a public conversation about a topic. Do you think about that much when you write?
It's pretty grim. I think that's one of the reasons I write fewer essays now. After I wrote this one, I had to go back and armor it by pre-empting anything I could imagine anyone willfully misunderstanding to use as a weapon in comment threads. The whole of footnote 1 is such armor for example. I essentially anticipated all the "No, what I said was" type comments I'd have had to make on HN and just included them in t…
You don't give your detractors enough credit. Many of these misunderstandings are not willful, and actively seeking to avoid them is almost always good practice on your part. (In my opinion.) For the record, I found footnote 1 illuminating.
I'm sure that the intense scrutiny you get would annoy any writer. But I think it genuinely makes your essays stronger, too, and I hope you don't hate it too much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You overestimate the value of academic research and of PhDs
No, I never claimed that academic research and Ph.D.s have high average value. The "value" of these two in nearly all cases is low. But, the value in particular cases is astoundingly high, totally blows away nearly everything else. What is crucial, then, as I explained very clearly, is EVALUATING the research. Then what the "value" is in most cases is irrelevant. Instead, what is relevant and crucial is the value aft…
For starters, as an asset class, sand hill returns are probably as high as it gets so "sucks" is definitely the wrong description.
The DoD comparisons are just weird.
The counter-intuitive nature of startup investing is a big part of what makes it so interesting to me. In most aspects of life, we are trained to avoid risk and only pursue "good ideas" (e.g. try to be a lawyer, not a rock star). With startups, I get to focus on things that are probably bad ideas, but possibly great ideas. It's not for everyone, but for those of us who love chasing dreams, it can be a great adventure…
This is probably true also for evaluating entrepreneurs where blindest is even greater (I call it "young white male syndrome"). It seems like if an entrepreneur is a little different (black, hispanic, women, little eccentric, older, etc.) he/she need to act and behave like "white young male" in order get noticed and funded. However, in that case he/she might be hiding the characteristics which will make them "rock st…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty grim. I think that's one of the reasons I write fewer essays now. After I wrote this one, I had to go back and armor it by pre-empting anything I could imagine anyone willfully misunderstanding to use as a weapon in comment threads. The whole of footnote 1 is such armor for example. I essentially anticipated all the "No, what I said was" type comments I'd have had to make on HN and just included them in t…
Well, I still enjoy your essays. Let this comment be the generic encouragement of those who aren't trying to pointless dispute and who are usually silent. At least some of the people who are questioning you are probably doing so out of intellectual curiosity, rather than animosity. You probably know that intellectually, but for many people—including me—it's sometimes hard to remember that in the heat of the reading m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If your startup ends up making you a million dollars a year you will probably be very happy and rightfully call yourself a success. I see this a lot from various corners of the startup ecosystem, particularly 37 Signals and their followers. The problem is that it's not really true, by which I mean there are not very many examples of it begin true, and there is an excellent reason to believe that it may never be tru…
it's really rare to find a lifestyle technology business. The traditional challenge you'd level here is "Name three" (37signals, Fog Creek, Balsamiq) but, due to the type of people I hang out with, I could get to fifty before having to slow down and start checking my Gmail. A friend of mine who is in the selling shovels business estimated that there are 30,000 firms selling SaaS. (That number struck me as crazy until…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do care about would-be founders' opinions, but surely I don't have to use every essay I write to convince people to apply to YC. I've already written elsewhere about the founder's eye view of YC (e.g. http://ycombinator.com/atyc.html ). This essay is just an exploration of the strangeness of startup investing as a business. The goal is not to convince anyone to do anything.
You're missing my point -- I was objecting to the "(at least among the innumerate)" bit. It would hurt YC's reputation among everybody who matters , whether innumerate or not, if 70% of YC companies didn't survive past Demo Day.
Quoth pg: It would hurt YC's brand (at least among the innumerate) if we invested in huge numbers of risky startups that flamed out. Paul, you're sounding like a venture capitalist who is worried about whether he can find investors for his next fund. I would posit that the people whose opinions you should care about are potential founders ; and that their primary concern is themselves , not the performance of a fund…
It would hurt founders' perceptions but wouldn't actually decrease any individual founder's chances of success. YC would just accept a bunch of people who aren't likely to get funded. What would happen if you split up the batches into two groups, YC Classic and YC Black Swan, and placed founders into the groups post-interview? People who were placed in YC Classic could continue to have the expectation of ~100% demo d…
The main difference in branding for KV's funds is really only to the LPs, though they do mention it to founders on their website. They want to cover themselves in case the seed funding both doesn't return anything and looked to be imprudent in retrospect. Luckily I think they're doing well.
Vinod is actually quite explicit about trying to find black swans in his pitches :-)
This paragraph read a bit confusing to me: The fact that the best ideas seem like bad ideas makes it even harder to recognize the big winners. It means the probability of a startup making it really big is not merely not a constant fraction of the probability that it will succeed, but that the startups with a high probability of the former will seem to have a disproportionately low probability of the latter. It could…