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

Paul Graham: Handling Investors (talk at Stanford 11 April 07)

blog.nanobeepers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 31 posts

Re: Paul Graham: Handling Investors (talk at Stanford 11 April 07)

#21

Post by elialfordj »

brett wrote: post #20
elialfordj wrote: post #19

"This is what VC's care about: A) traffic B) what other VC's think of you C) the quality of your team" I had to stop reading. What about uuhmm...revenue?

The point he was making there was that while VC's claim team quality is the highest priority, it's not (and most VC's are unable to accurately evaluate team quality anyways). Regardless: Are you claiming that all VC funded companies have revenue at the time of funding? To my knowledge VCs fund many pre-revenue companies. That would indicate that at least for those deals revenue was not an important factor. A lot of l…

Do all VC funded startups have traffic? Do all VC funded Startups have a reputation among VCs? I was obviously not making a statement about "all" VC funded companies. If we're talking about what is important to venture capitalists when evaluating startups seeking early stage financing, I think revenue should have been a good candidate for that short list of qualities. If you can show in a small test market that your model is capable of generating revenue, and your model is scalable, this is going to look pretty appealing to your prospective financier. Not every startup involves some abstract technical concept, it is possible to build a company with revenues from the start.

Re: Paul Graham: Handling Investors (talk at Stanford 11 April 07)

#22

Post by mattjaynes »

Tichy wrote: post #10

So what is the ass-wipe algorithm mentioned in the article? It is not patented, or is it?

He he, nope - it's under GPL ;)

I created a new thread so others could add their answers. My answer is here:

http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=12495

Re: Paul Graham: Handling Investors (talk at Stanford 11 April 07)

#23

Post by mattjaynes »

timach wrote: post #12

YOU WROTE: "When I did my app, I really liked the last question which was to tell about something 'surprising' or 'amusing' that you had discovered. So I asked if they had had many good answers to that one. Paul said that there were some really good ones, but that inexplicably many had left that question blank! Then he chuckled and said "Actually, there was a guy who submitted this wonderful algorithm for wiping his…

Yeah, the ass-wiping algorithm might be more memorable because it's simple, concrete, and there is nothing 'abstract' about it.

For more on the 'stickiness' of ideas, check out this book:

http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/01/the_stickiness_.html

Re: Paul Graham: Handling Investors (talk at Stanford 11 April 07)

#24

Post by brett »

elialfordj wrote: post #21
brett wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point he was making there was that while VC's claim team quality is the highest priority, it's not (and most VC's are unable to accurately evaluate team quality anyways). Regardless: Are you claiming that all VC funded companies have revenue at the time of funding? To my knowledge VCs fund many pre-revenue companies. That would indicate that at least for those deals revenue was not an important factor. A lot of l…

Do all VC funded startups have traffic? Do all VC funded Startups have a reputation among VCs? I was obviously not making a statement about "all" VC funded companies. If we're talking about what is important to venture capitalists when evaluating startups seeking early stage financing, I think revenue should have been a good candidate for that short list of qualities. If you can show in a small test market that your…

That's a pretty good point. Some VC funded startups (namely ones that have not launched) probably have less traffic than some laundromats and that clearly does not mean traffic is not important. My guess is that buzz amongst VC firms is more of a uniform prerequisite, but point well taken.

Ultimately this list is entirely empirical. Paul's list seems to jive with other sources I've read/heard but, admittedly, I know relatively little about VC deals. If you've got examples where revenue was a big factor early on I would be curious to hear about them.

Re: Paul Graham: Handling Investors (talk at Stanford 11 April 07)

#25

Post by blader »

nostrademons wrote: post #17
danielha wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30 was just the number they invited for the Winter batch. It's not their standard cutoff number.

It seems like it'd have to be around that just for time constraints, though. If they give each interview an hour, 30 teams means 15 hour days all through the weekend.

We've been told that interviews run around 10 minutes per team. I'm not sure if this was the case for previous seasons.

Re: Paul Graham: Handling Investors (talk at Stanford 11 April 07)

#26

Post by jey »

nostrademons wrote: post #17
danielha wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30 was just the number they invited for the Winter batch. It's not their standard cutoff number.

It seems like it'd have to be around that just for time constraints, though. If they give each interview an hour, 30 teams means 15 hour days all through the weekend.

The interviews are much, much shorter than an hour. Either they're really good at reading people, you just have to make the most of the short time you have, or both.

Trevor said that they have about 50 interviewees for this round.

Re: Paul Graham: Handling Investors (talk at Stanford 11 April 07)

#27

Post by juwo »

timach wrote: post #15
jey wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to threadjack, but what does this mean: "timach notes that time is expanding between The Big Bang and The Advent of Human Consciousness. These are the opposite poles of existence." I don't understand what you're trying to say by "time is expanding". It also seems to me like a rather anthropocentric view of the universe to put human consciousness at one "pole of existence". We've only observed a thin slice of ex…

He's my cofounder and I don't understand what he is talking about either. As for what I am saying, the basic point is that only two interesting things have happened. One is The Big Bang, and the other is that we know it. All else is imaginary. The idea that "we've only observed a thin slice of existence" is falling prey to the metaphor to which I am objecting. There is no "existence" to slice up.

"He's my cofounder and I don't understand what he is talking about either"

That is so funny!

When I initially read your post two days ago, I was indignant at PG a la "throwing pearls (you) before swine (YC)".

Now I realize - and I dont know if PG would have had this insight - an entrepreneur needs to communicate ideas. I could not even read through your answers, much less understand them!!!

Re: Paul Graham: Handling Investors (talk at Stanford 11 April 07)

#28

Post by erdos2 »

juwo wrote: post #27
timach wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's my cofounder and I don't understand what he is talking about either. As for what I am saying, the basic point is that only two interesting things have happened. One is The Big Bang, and the other is that we know it. All else is imaginary. The idea that "we've only observed a thin slice of existence" is falling prey to the metaphor to which I am objecting. There is no "existence" to slice up.

"He's my cofounder and I don't understand what he is talking about either" That is so funny! When I initially read your post two days ago, I was indignant at PG a la "throwing pearls (you) before swine (YC)". Now I realize - and I dont know if PG would have had this insight - an entrepreneur needs to communicate ideas. I could not even read through your answers, much less understand them!!!

I still don't know what he was getting at, and neither does he. :)

Re: Paul Graham: Handling Investors (talk at Stanford 11 April 07)

#29

Post by juwo »

erdos2 wrote: post #28
juwo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"He's my cofounder and I don't understand what he is talking about either" That is so funny! When I initially read your post two days ago, I was indignant at PG a la "throwing pearls (you) before swine (YC)". Now I realize - and I dont know if PG would have had this insight - an entrepreneur needs to communicate ideas. I could not even read through your answers, much less understand them!!!

I still don't know what he was getting at, and neither does he. :)

So, are you his cofounder?!
Post reply on HN