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

How to Start Google

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 681 posts

Re: How to Start Google

#271

Post by feedforward »

gist wrote: post #212
gumby wrote: post #188

> If you look at the lists of the richest people that occasionally get published in the press, nearly all of them did it by starting their own companies. Actaally if you look at those lists, the largest number made it by choosing their parents correctly.

> If you look at the lists of the richest people that occasionally get published in the press, nearly all of them did it by starting their own companies. And actually it's a stupid point to begin with; making a point by choosing the absolute top percentage as if there is nothing other than 'really' rich (forget whether that is even a good thing I'd argue it's not a plus to have that much money and notoriety). There i…

Of course you're correct, but forget about that - two thirds of the team that started Viaweb and then Y-Combinator crashed, according to then contemporary reports, 10% of the machines on the Internet for the fun of vandalism or a prank or whatever. The one who was charged did no jail time - Graham wasn't even charged.

He then goes on to exploit young techies to put himself in a very prime position in the relations of production. Nowadays he tweets minimally veiled racist tweets about the supposed biological superiority of his brain compared to the rest of us, especially other races. Talk about privilege.

Re: How to Start Google

#272

Post by theGnuMe »

YossarianFrPrez wrote: post #160
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what is fundamentally missing from most talk about "tech" startups by VC types these days. They're not actually interested in the nerdy stuff, just in the "disruption" stuff. L&S were , and they hired other people who were. They didn't start with a business idea, but with a technical one. They filled in the blanks on the business side after they survived the .com crash. I didn't get to Google until 2011, but…

Very interesting to hear your thoughts and experience. I wonder if we really shouldn't make a bit more out of the fact that there are different types of startups: those that pick off low-hanging fruit really well, those that combine novel technology with novel problems (for instance, the recent YC LLM meeting note-taking / transcription service), those that are scientific-discovery based (see, for example the NSF Sma…

The nsf program basically exists to fill the gap between research and product market fit. Except They focus on commercialization plans which we know that in reality is subject to change (aka meaningless).

Re: How to Start Google

#273

Post by zrm »

jakjak123 wrote: post #265
zrm wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Startups are high-risk high-reward. That doesn't necessarily mean they're a bad idea. Expected value can be positive even when probability is low. Moreover, a lot of young people can afford to take a chance on something. If you spend a few years living with your parents and attempting to create something, and you fail, you still have several decades of your life to go punch a clock at Big Corp. And even if you fail t…

I think one should argue that starting a business is high risk, mediocre reward. Most businesses just kinda trudge along, not leaving with the fairy tale returns of FAANG. Those are unicorns for a reason. Most of the businesses I've worked for, some of the founders are still working there and while they are pretty well off, they either havent sold yet (no big payday) or they made a meager sale netting them a very goo…

It's expecting the high reward which is high risk. Creating a small business that can trudge along and pay you a modest salary is fairly common.

Re: How to Start Google

#274

Post by munificent »

ak_111 wrote: post #119
munificent wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say all this like it's a bad thing, but maybe it's ultimately better for a society if there isn't a financial lottery that enables a small number of people to become insanely wealthy and powerful. I'd rather a government that enables a thousand mid-sized companies with moderately well-paid executives and employees than one that enables a single monopolistic mega-corporation with billionaires whose power rivals st…

Of course it is a monumentally bad thing for the UK economy it doesn't have any big tech companies! I actually don't understand your point at all. To say nothing of the lost revenue from tech export do you think it is better for the UK that it depends on AWS cloud for running the majority of its public services, Apple for almost 70% of the phones used by it's citizens, Google for the other 30%? Which midsize company…

Is there truly nothing you can imagine that might be more important than maximizing revenue?

Re: How to Start Google

#275

Post by landryraccoon »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #219

Totally insane. 99% or more of the people who enable Google to do what Google does are employees of Google. Same with every other company. The odds of being the founder of a successful company are probably worse than being a professional sportsball player (if only because they turn over more frequently). Does anything good come from encouraging kids to think that they will manage to sail through life as a successful…

I can’t disagree more.

I’ve founded failed startups. I don’t regret a single one of them. I’ve worked at failed startups and big companies and I learned more and had more fun at the startups than I ever did at a big company.

The point is, if you try to found a company, you don’t have to make a billion dollars to consider it a success. In terms of personal growth it’s easily the equal of any big company job.

Re: How to Start Google

#276

Post by fakedang »

rmah wrote: post #117
fakedang wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. >In fact, this is the standard way to get really rich. No. The standard way of getting "rich" is to get into a good career that pays a lot. Before Silicon Valley, people got "rich" by working at Wall Street, law or Congress. Getting rich through business is a lottery. I would have attributed this article from Graham to relative inexperience had he written this early on, say in the 2000s. But him writing this…

> The standard way of getting "rich" is to get into a good career that > pays a lot. Before Silicon Valley, people got "rich" by working at > Wall Street, law or Congress I'm afraid this isn't really true. Through most of the industrial revolution and after (i.e. after the early 1800's), professionals (lawyers, bankers, accountants, doctors, etc.) made a smaller multiple of unskilled labor wages than they do today. I…

How many businesses succeed enough to make you millions? Most businesses are loss making entities, still more are just subsistence businesses. The ones which make you "rich" will still only make you worth a few millions, not what Paul Graham is referring to as "rich". You could get that same level of "rich" by working in Big Tech in a cushiony job, Wall Street, law or Congress (lobbyist or Congressman). Getting to what PG calls rich is just a lottery game in the big picture of things.

I've started one of the "small rich" businesses before, and made a few millions out of it when I was too young. Those millions enabled me to make certain bets that, though risky, would still have a huge upside. That huge upside allowed me to make very good money, the kind of "rich" that PG actually means, without the risk that comes with starting up a business that your VCs want to push to unicorn status. That's basically what most sensible rich folks in America have done, even the ones that you celebrate in your comment. And yet they'll all send their kids to Harvard and Stanford to attend MBAs and grad school because they don't want to put their kid's futures to the whims of a lottery.

"Making your first million is the hardest, so start with a second million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger

Re: How to Start Google

#277

Post by arbuge »

duderific wrote: post #240
mattlondon wrote: post #215

I dislike this sort of advice for teenagers. You may as well tell them to be rock stars or professional sports people. Tell the kids to study, don't sell them an unobtainable dream

To be fair, he does tell them to study. But only because you have to get into a good college to find other people to found startups with.

Good enough reason I think. Actually it might provide some further motivation for them to do so if they were considering not doing it previously.

Re: How to Start Google

#278

Post by unraveller »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #219

Totally insane. 99% or more of the people who enable Google to do what Google does are employees of Google. Same with every other company. The odds of being the founder of a successful company are probably worse than being a professional sportsball player (if only because they turn over more frequently). Does anything good come from encouraging kids to think that they will manage to sail through life as a successful…

To observers it looks like they missed but observers don't really want to put themselves in the shoes of him who is about to take the shot. In that moment the observer can only win by onlooking, either be reassured that failure is near certain and all risk folly or the observer can be surprised and glad to see the consuming world birth another product.

From a psychological standpoint not aiming high would have been a bigger miss to the person taking the shot. They clearly chose risk no matter how they sulk afterwards.

The ratio of posts about "work-purpose porn" for employee bees and pipe dream madness for misfits is never going to satisfy everyone on HN.

Re: How to Start Google

#279

Post by paulpauper »

gordon_freeman wrote: post #164

> "But you will avoid many of the annoying things that come with a job, including a boss telling you what to do." Isn't this a bit misleading and can only be true for companies that don't take VC money or never go public (ex: Basecamp/37 Signals)? For VC funded or public companies, ultimately you'd have to be responsible to answer to your shareholders.

> "But you will avoid many of the annoying things that come with a job, including a boss telling you what to do."

Yeah but that boss is paying you mid 6 figs or even 7, plus comp and other stuff, then maybe it's not so bad. Why else are these tech companies inundated with so many job applications if having a boss is supposed to be so bad. I think this guy is still stuck in a '90s or early 2000s 'Dilbert' mindset when salaries were way worse and bosses had more leverage and employees were closer to being like slaves. A lot has changed. .

Re: How to Start Google

#280

Post by erickhill »

This has probably been mentioned before on previous posts to Mr. Graham's site, but I find the 1998-ness of the underlying HMTL and simple (if fuzzy) front end (with image map!) that even my PowerBook Pismo can render and appreciate a total blast of fresh air. A mild shame it is running HTTPS so more vintage hardware can't access it, but I understand why.

Anyhoo, props to 1998 era web design. Sincerely.

Post reply on HN