There is actually a really good reason not to start a start-up with friends, you might find that your friendship is the victim of either the success or the failure of your start-up.
Paul Graham’s Checklist, Would You Make The Cut?
21–30 of 47 posts
Re: Paul Graham’s Checklist, Would You Make The Cut?
#22I think he misinterpreted the Twitter question. She seemed to be asking whether he would reject a group with an idea as compelling as Twitter if the founders didn't have the right personalities.
"an idea as compelling as Twitter" - proof that something is a great idea like Twitter only becomes obvious in retrospect. If you heard a description of Twitter just before it launched, you probably wouldn't think it would work (or wouldn't know one way or the other). Hence the importance of the founding team and how well they execute the idea.
Re: Paul Graham’s Checklist, Would You Make The Cut?
#23There is actually a really good reason not to start a start-up with friends, you might find that your friendship is the victim of either the success or the failure of your start-up.
Unfortunately I have to concur with this from personal experience. However saying that it doesn't seem to have stopped me from trying again. That is until I run out of friends :)
Re: Paul Graham’s Checklist, Would You Make The Cut?
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
But for someone whose whole job is to find, and invest in, "the next Google", you'd think there could be some sort of recognizable features that a Bayesian classifier could learn as positive weights (as, if there weren't, that person would guess correctly at no greater a rate than chance, and would therefore be replaced by a small shell-script/die roll.) Those recognizable features should then be able to be decompose…
I think PG is on the right track with his investing strategy. Lets say his probability of finding the next Google with this rule was a arbitary value of 0.001. I wouldn't know its exact value but I'm assuming it's non-zero. He would have to invest in 693 companies before he has a 50% chance of hitting a google. I don't think they have gone that far as yet. It's just a matter of time.
There are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of web companies, there is one google, and maybe 50 or so (extremely successful) companies where investors from a seed fund had a chance to get in on the bottom rung they way YC wants to have it.
The chances of finding 'the next google' are a lot smaller than what you think they are, but the chances of scoring a really big hit (on the order of 10's of millions in terms of ROI for YC) are pretty good.
Re: Paul Graham’s Checklist, Would You Make The Cut?
#25I founded a startup that was featured by the WSJ all by myself and have gone on to work on a new project which has some traction. I applied to YC with another idea and didn't "make the cut." I personally take that to be a greater challenge to succeede than any friendship or relationship could obligate me to. PG may have a checklist which works most of the time but I suspect that's the first step toward missing the ou…
But for someone whose whole job is to find, and invest in, "the next Google", you'd think there could be some sort of recognizable features that a Bayesian classifier could learn as positive weights (as, if there weren't, that person would guess correctly at no greater a rate than chance, and would therefore be replaced by a small shell-script/die roll.) Those recognizable features should then be able to be decompose…
has_traction?
has_ability_to_get_traction?
It's pretty clear that the "checklist" boils down to sizing up the founders (clear leader?) and sizing up the founders persistence. Persistent leaders usually end up getting traction some way with some product. So that would be my 2 classifiers.
Re: Paul Graham’s Checklist, Would You Make The Cut?
#26Anyone else not want to watch a video to see a checklist? Anyone kind enough to paste notes?
Seconded. Please tag as a video, this "article" isn't useful if you're not using speakers/headphones.
Re: Paul Graham’s Checklist, Would You Make The Cut?
#27Anyone else not want to watch a video to see a checklist? Anyone kind enough to paste notes?
PG's Startup Checklist Been friends Worked together for awhile Don't come together for only the startup If close friends, stick with it even if things look bad because things eventually get better. Don't want companies run by committee. Need clear leadership, don't want unclear sense of who the primary decision maker is. Want to know who they should address a question to. But not a megalomaniac, just want somebody wh…
Excellent list, alnayyir. Thanks for doing that.
Re: Paul Graham’s Checklist, Would You Make The Cut?
#28I founded a startup that was featured by the WSJ all by myself and have gone on to work on a new project which has some traction. I applied to YC with another idea and didn't "make the cut." I personally take that to be a greater challenge to succeede than any friendship or relationship could obligate me to. PG may have a checklist which works most of the time but I suspect that's the first step toward missing the ou…
But for someone whose whole job is to find, and invest in, "the next Google", you'd think there could be some sort of recognizable features that a Bayesian classifier could learn as positive weights (as, if there weren't, that person would guess correctly at no greater a rate than chance, and would therefore be replaced by a small shell-script/die roll.) Those recognizable features should then be able to be decompose…
GP's point is that the truly breakout success redefine what it means to be successful. e.g. Google wasn't taken seriously because there was no money on the internet, MS wasn't taken seriously cos there was no money in software, etc. etc. You don't see the revolution coming, you're in it or you're not.
With FUD and spin making such big motions on startups (see diaspora 2 months ago) you're as well off making random bets, bets on personality or some other arbitrary factor that works for you.
There isn't a winning strategy, or all invested startups would succeed, so it's pretty much a die roll. People like PG pick a few criteria that work for them and to some measure stack the deck in their favour, but it is and will always be a gamble.
Re: Paul Graham’s Checklist, Would You Make The Cut?
#29I will never tire of hearing pg's analogies and metaphors. I'm considering compiling them for a website.
Re: Paul Graham’s Checklist, Would You Make The Cut?
#30Anyone else not want to watch a video to see a checklist? Anyone kind enough to paste notes?
Sure, but it's nothing that we haven't heard before. Every startup faces moments of uncertainty and the feeling of impending doom, and founders that know each other are more likely to stick through hard times due to the pair bond. See, if the only thing holding two people together is the potential success of the startup, they're more likely to jump ship when the going gets tough. If the founders are friends, they'll…
Yeah, we've heard this from day 1. What was interesting to me was to hear PG say that even they underestimated how important the people are compared to the initial idea. Compared to the first batches he said the application form now has a lot more questions about the people, and a lot fewer about what they plan to do.