Startup School 2017 First Lecture • Hacker News Board

Re: Startup School 2017 First Lecture

#21

Post by mifeng » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 1:34 AM UTC

arikr wrote: post #16

TuggaRoo wrote: post #6

Great resource - looking forward to future videos. It does feel like there's an assumption that everyone who wants to build a startup is trying to build the same kind of startup. Lifestyle businesses and social entrepreneurship ventures are kind of glossed over, but are legitimate - they require passion and hardwork without the hope or promise of big payoffs. I'm wondering if this series will be appropriate for peopl…

This lecture series is definitely aimed at the "startup = growth" type of startup, so much more relevant to companies that want to get huge.

As a former founder I do think there's truth to Altman's advice to tackle big/hard problems rather than small/easy.

Rationale:

- you develop unique expertise and skills that are more valuable (ie more acquihire rationale) if things go south

- easier to fundraise and recruit

- optionality: downshifting to solving a smaller problem is easier than leveling up to solving a bigger one

Re: Startup School 2017 First Lecture

#22

Post by scobar » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 1:50 AM UTC

nhorob67 wrote: post #13

Interesting how Moskovitz just glosses over a "lifestyle" business. I started a business 2 years ago, am the sole employee, and it'll make $400-500k in revenue in 2017 with 20-40% net profits. I don't think I recreated the wheel here. I'm making a software product that businesses want to buy.

I think he glossed over that type of business because it's not a startup. It is a perfectly reasonable style for many who wish to start a new business, but the course is focused on startups.

Re: Startup School 2017 First Lecture

#23

Post by nhorob67 » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 2:24 AM UTC

scobar wrote: post #22

nhorob67 wrote: post #13

Interesting how Moskovitz just glosses over a "lifestyle" business. I started a business 2 years ago, am the sole employee, and it'll make $400-500k in revenue in 2017 with 20-40% net profits. I don't think I recreated the wheel here. I'm making a software product that businesses want to buy.

I think he glossed over that type of business because it's not a startup. It is a perfectly reasonable style for many who wish to start a new business, but the course is focused on startups.

I don't think a startup is defined as a company aiming to be a unicorn. I simply consider it a new, for-profit business

Re: Startup School 2017 First Lecture

#24

Post by swampthing » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 2:39 AM UTC

nhorob67 wrote: post #23

scobar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he glossed over that type of business because it's not a startup. It is a perfectly reasonable style for many who wish to start a new business, but the course is focused on startups.

I don't think a startup is defined as a company aiming to be a unicorn. I simply consider it a new, for-profit business

There isn't really a standard definition of the word "startup". But many in Silicon Valley think of it as how PG defined it:

http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html

> A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit." The only essential thing is growth. Everything else we associate with startups follows from growth.

Re: Startup School 2017 First Lecture

#25

Post by neuromancer2701 » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 2:43 AM UTC

nhorob67 wrote: post #23

scobar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he glossed over that type of business because it's not a startup. It is a perfectly reasonable style for many who wish to start a new business, but the course is focused on startups.

I don't think a startup is defined as a company aiming to be a unicorn. I simply consider it a new, for-profit business

startup = high/exponential growth

Re: Startup School 2017 First Lecture

#26

Post by jps359 » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 2:44 AM UTC

nhorob67 wrote: post #15

BukhariH wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't mind me asking. What's your business?

Farm accounting software. Boring to most, exciting to me! Just maybe that's a key

How were you able to identify that there is/was a need for farm accounting software?

Re: Startup School 2017 First Lecture

#27

Post by jaredklewis » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 2:47 AM UTC

nhorob67 wrote: post #23

scobar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he glossed over that type of business because it's not a startup. It is a perfectly reasonable style for many who wish to start a new business, but the course is focused on startups.

I don't think a startup is defined as a company aiming to be a unicorn. I simply consider it a new, for-profit business

Sure, it's not a well defined term with a universally agreed upon definition, but now we're just arguing semantics.

You like to define it as a new, for-profit business. Seems reasonable. However, I found that many others use the term to specifically refer to the kind of high risk, high growth company that meet the investment profile of typical venture capitalists.

It seems obvious that the good people of startup school are using the word startup in the latter sense. And honestly that sense of the word seems more common. Most people refer to what you do as bootstrapping, not a startup.

But is it really that interesting to have an argument over the definition of startup?

I don't think anyone at startup school is against bootstrapping. They're probably not against enterprises either. The event just has a focus.

Re: Startup School 2017 First Lecture

#28

Post by nhorob67 » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 2:49 AM UTC

swampthing wrote: post #24

nhorob67 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think a startup is defined as a company aiming to be a unicorn. I simply consider it a new, for-profit business

There isn't really a standard definition of the word "startup". But many in Silicon Valley think of it as how PG defined it: http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html > A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit." The only essential thing is growt…

Fair enough. Forgot about that essay.

I'm more of a linear growth type of person but that's likely a product of my end market.

Re: Startup School 2017 First Lecture

#29

Post by nhorob67 » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 2:54 AM UTC

jaredklewis wrote: post #27

nhorob67 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think a startup is defined as a company aiming to be a unicorn. I simply consider it a new, for-profit business

Sure, it's not a well defined term with a universally agreed upon definition, but now we're just arguing semantics. You like to define it as a new, for-profit business. Seems reasonable. However, I found that many others use the term to specifically refer to the kind of high risk, high growth company that meet the investment profile of typical venture capitalists. It seems obvious that the good people of startup scho…

Good points and true.

I really enjoy a lot of what YC puts out, especially the philosophy that growth is the ultimate no-BS filter. That was eye opening for my when u heard Jessica Livingston talk about it.

All-in-all, my initial comment is likely misplaced given the nature of startup school.

But I do believe that most businesses should aim for, and be happy, with linear growth.

Re: Startup School 2017 First Lecture

#30

Post by nhorob67 » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 2:57 AM UTC

jps359 wrote: post #26

nhorob67 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farm accounting software. Boring to most, exciting to me! Just maybe that's a key

How were you able to identify that there is/was a need for farm accounting software?

My family farms in W ND. I worked in private equity for a few years in Minneapolis.

Saw my friends and family turn down crazy good risk-free profit opportunities during the AG commodity bull market of 2008. "It's going higher!"

So I quit private equity and started consulting for family farms in the Upper Midwest. That led me to build a software package that I wanted my clients to use and started selling it to others.