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

YC: Requests for Startups

ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 582 posts

Re: YC: Requests for Startups

#271

Post by hef19898 »

laser wrote: post #261
hef19898 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You already cannot map data automatically from one SAP instance to another, so forget auto migration. What usually happebs is, to keep the legacy system around for auditing purposes, and the live business happens in the new one. With cut-off dates per function and or department. With manually developed interfaces, and all the crap that comes with those, during the migartion period. An nothing of this has anything to…

Why is it not entering the realm of possibility for the migration system to function not at an API layer but at the levels of pixels and OCR and RPA to click through every possible interface within the ERP to export and structure the legacy data to complete a total migration? Like humans copying over the data manually?

Because the migration has to be auditable. And the data fields between the systems / databases mapped against business processes, on both systems. If you find a solution to automate that, cudos...

Re: YC: Requests for Startups

#273

Post by mamcx »

brettv2 wrote: post #51

> NEW ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SOFTWARE Very curious if anyone knows how to pull this off. There's so much value to be unlocked but it's just impossible to break through. I've personally met three very talented founders that tried and failed (one was accepted to YC as a mid-market ERP and successfully pivoted into an application tracking system) and failed very quickly. I'm guessing an important feature would be…

> Very curious if anyone knows how to pull this off.

I work in this space (small/mid-size).

The good news is that there are several "obvious" ways to pull this off because an ERP is the culmination of everything a company needs and does. So almost anything you can imagine on the software is part of it.

The bad news, and the reason everyone wants a solution, is that is truly a big space, and then you need E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G.

---

My take is to start from the bottom, and build a much better version of Access/FoxPro (https://tablam.org).

Any medium/big ERP end being a specialized computing platform that needs:

- A programming language

- A database engine

- An orchestration engine

- ELT engine

- Auth

- UI/Report builders

And to be clear: NONE of the "programming language", "database engine", etc are a good fit today.

NONE.

This is the big thing, This is the reason (from a tech POW only) that most attempts fail.

This is the secret of why Cobol rule(d): Is all of this! but is too old! (also, this is why SQL still is best: Is almost this).

---

So, to pull this off, you need a team that knows what is "missing" from our current tools, makes a well-integrated package, and adds a "user-friendly" interface in a way that is palatable for the kind of user that uses excel (powerfully).

Is not that impossible. FoxPro was the best example of this kind of integrated solution.

P.D: This is my life's dream, to make this truth!

Re: YC: Requests for Startups

#274

Post by briandear »

SteveNuts wrote: post #151
brettv2 wrote: post #51

> NEW ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SOFTWARE Very curious if anyone knows how to pull this off. There's so much value to be unlocked but it's just impossible to break through. I've personally met three very talented founders that tried and failed (one was accepted to YC as a mid-market ERP and successfully pivoted into an application tracking system) and failed very quickly. I'm guessing an important feature would be…

Step one is to make sure it's auditable. Every auditor on the planet is intimately familiar with how Oracle EBS and SAP do certain things. If you don't have that trust built up, a customer simply won't want to take the risk and additional headache and overhead passing an audit will take.

Sounds like there is the opportunity. An ERP that can eliminate the need for auditors. Then it won’t matter what the auditors think. Auditing isn’t some black magic. It’s a set of rules. Rules a machine can follow.

Re: YC: Requests for Startups

#275

Post by groby_b »

jaredmclaughlin wrote: post #263
Animats wrote: post #221

Most of those take a lot more time and money than YC usually offers. There are some opportunities in "New Defense Technology". Something like a low-cost replacement for the Javelin anti-tank missile based on off the shelf phone camera parts ought to be possible. Of course, once that's out there, every insurgent group will have some. "Explainable AI" is really important. "Stablecoin finance" is mostly how to make sure…

What part of a cell phone do you think we can't make?

Do we have the aluminum milling capacity at scale?

Can we manufacture touch screens at scale?

Can we manufacture Li-ion batteries at scale? (Tesla and Panasonic might be able to, with large new investments, but I don't think there's anybody ready to go)

Do we have 3nm fab capacity? (TSMC is planning to build one, but AFAIK not yet)

Do we have the ability to manufacture various sensors at scale? (Some likely yes - ambient light, inertial - some no)

What about image sensors? (Maybe, Omnivision is probably the best candidate, but I don't think they can currently do 48MP. ON Semiconductor is also a good chunk away from that, AFAIK)

I think that's a sufficient number of parts to claim we currently can't make cell phones, as long as you define cell phone as "current gen cell phone". We could probably retool relatively quickly back to at least cell phones, but even that is AFAIK not a current capacity.

Can we _theoretically_ do all that? Sure. But we can't right now, or within short time frames, and we can't without significant investment.

Re: YC: Requests for Startups

#276

Post by nradov »

skrbjc wrote: post #243
nradov wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is plenty of space for VC backed start-ups to compete in healthcare. It would be foolish to go head-to-head with a company like HCA or UnitedHealth Group. But there is a lot of opportunity to sell them better software which improves the experience for everyone in the system. Or build better medical devices or improve efficiency in the drug development process or a zillion other niche areas.

Someone needs to tackle Epic in the EMR space and overthrow their closed system.

Y Combinator has already funded several Epic competitors in the EHR space including DrChrono, Medplum, and Akute Health. Always room for more. The requirements for an EHR that can work in any provider organization are so overwhelming that no startup could directly compete against Epic. But a startup could initially target a particular medical specialty or facility type that Epic doesn't support very well, then expand out from there.

https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/industry/healthcare-it

Epic is no longer a closed system. They now support a wide range of open standard APIs.

https://open.epic.com/

Re: YC: Requests for Startups

#277

Post by RowanH »

brettv2 wrote: post #51

> NEW ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SOFTWARE Very curious if anyone knows how to pull this off. There's so much value to be unlocked but it's just impossible to break through. I've personally met three very talented founders that tried and failed (one was accepted to YC as a mid-market ERP and successfully pivoted into an application tracking system) and failed very quickly. I'm guessing an important feature would be…

The problems with ERP is (1) in order to be a big player you have to cater for so many use cases it starts becoming a glorified development tool without any room for providing actual ROI to the vertical that wants to buy it. (2) it's very, very easy to fall into the trap of saying "well, process x is really no different in industry y, we can adapt the ERP system". In reality there's so many nuances that the platform becomes compromise.

Vertical specific software provides so much more value as you can build things unencumbered by the engine/data structures/way things work.

I've found our niche - ERP's would be hopelessly expensive so save for top tier OE companies no one uses it. In weeks we can develop and roll out features & functionality that our clients just lap up that you would never in a million years build into an ERP platform, but is intrinsic to the delivery of our clients products.

It was inconceivable to me 2 years ago, but now I've had very real discussions with some companies where they're looking at our software going "wow... you're going to give mid tier players better functionality that we could only dream of from our ERP systems.."

Basically ERP platforms are "jack of all trades, master of none".

In my former life we did vertical specific software for the window and door industry. Every time we heard from a prospect "oh we're looking at __some ERP platform__ to do configuration of W&D", we'd immediately list dozens of reasons why they would fail, and fail hard.. countless untold money to consulting teams has been burned learning those lessons.

Re: YC: Requests for Startups

#278

Post by SirLJ »

Difwif wrote: post #244
SirLJ wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, already got rejected couple of times, even before the AI boom, with my company which clearly falls under "Using Machine Learning to simulate the physical world" and "Explainable A.I." and have the potential to fall under most of the rest...

A lot of YC's material about their selection process centers around the founders instead of the idea. They openly admit that they choose a team and expect you to pivot a few times. Obviously I don't know anything about you or your ideas and I don't mean to offend but I've typically assumed that a YC rejection means they disqualified the candidate for one reason or another. Do they give feedback in their rejection? I'…

No individual feedback, I am not offended at all as this is 2 way street, why would I accept money from someone who does not believe in me :-)

Re: YC: Requests for Startups

#279

Post by brandnewlow »

ericpauley wrote: post #267
jbverschoor wrote: post #63

Small comment about the "Stable Coins": > $136b worth of stablecoins have been issued to date but the opportunity seems much more immense still. Only about seven million people have transacted with stablecoins to date, while more than half a billion live in countries with 30%+ inflation. U.S. banks hold $17b in customer deposits which are all up for grabs as well. And yet the major stablecoin issuers can be counted o…

Further, I don't know that I'd want to use a finance product from a backer that mixed up $17b and $17T .

Fixed. Thanks!

Re: YC: Requests for Startups

#280

Post by hef19898 »

dilyevsky wrote: post #240
Animats wrote: post #221

Most of those take a lot more time and money than YC usually offers. There are some opportunities in "New Defense Technology". Something like a low-cost replacement for the Javelin anti-tank missile based on off the shelf phone camera parts ought to be possible. Of course, once that's out there, every insurgent group will have some. "Explainable AI" is really important. "Stablecoin finance" is mostly how to make sure…

The is no practical reason why javelin costs the $$$ it costs post r&d which was completed in the early 1990s. The matrix and most other electronics in it are extremely basic and could be obtained off the shelve already like 20 years ago. The concept is already outdated anyway - just use a cheap drone

Some of zhe reason why a javelin costs what it costs:

- small production runs

- obsolete components

- obsolete production technology

- certification requirements

- continued support and design changes to account for the above

- the mandatory defence surcharge

From top of my head.

Post reply on HN