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

Ask PG: Did the "apply to YC without an idea" experiment work?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Ask PG: Did the "apply to YC without an idea" experiment work?

#41

Post by aphelion »

famousactress wrote: post #15
tempestn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But also, I find it pretty hard to imagine building a successful technical startup in this manner. Not saying there's no value to non-technical founders, but alone? How do you evaluate the quality of the outsourced work?

How do you evaluate the quality of the outsourced work? I find that silly. I'm not a chef but I can taste food. Increasingly I have the tendency to believe that all this technical/non-technical is a really unfortunate simplification. I think especially when it comes to a startup tackling really big problems whether you've programmed before might be a rounding error in the equation toward succeeding.

Bad analogy. It's more like choosing a catering company to cater a five thousand person convention on the basis of a single meal they prepare for you alone. Even if it tastes great, you have no idea how they're going to hold up when the number of people they need to serve increases massively. And you have no idea whether they're end up killing guests with food allergies or forcing those with different dietary restrictions to go hungry.

Re: Ask PG: Did the "apply to YC without an idea" experiment work?

#42

Post by tempestn »

famousactress wrote: post #15
tempestn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But also, I find it pretty hard to imagine building a successful technical startup in this manner. Not saying there's no value to non-technical founders, but alone? How do you evaluate the quality of the outsourced work?

How do you evaluate the quality of the outsourced work? I find that silly. I'm not a chef but I can taste food. Increasingly I have the tendency to believe that all this technical/non-technical is a really unfortunate simplification. I think especially when it comes to a startup tackling really big problems whether you've programmed before might be a rounding error in the equation toward succeeding.

I agree that the word 'technical' is somewhat of a meaningless catch-all. If I were starting a restaurant, I would want to know how to cook. To start an auto shop, I'd want some mechanical skill; a clothing boutique, some knowledge of fashion; and a software startup... the ability to code.

Of course there are other skills - management, marketing, sales, etc. - that would also be helpful. But as a sole founder, while not critical, it seems extremely useful to have some degree of competence in the primary area of work for your business.

In fact, were I planning to start a software company without yet knowing how to code, I think my first step would be to learn enough to build the alpha version (or depending on scope, a core component thereof) myself. Not only is having a specific goal the best way to learn, it would likely result in all kinds of insights into the planned business that just couldn't be gained by farming it out. (In fact, that's exactly what I did with SearchTempest, before eventually hiring a far better developer than myself! :) )

Re: Ask PG: Did the "apply to YC without an idea" experiment work?

#43

Post by rdl »

BSousa wrote: post #30

While not related to the original question, how does YC work for non US residents and Visa related issues? Does it accept/sponsor a few outside the US startups? IS it interested in doing so?

YC has plenty of non-US residents. Visa situations get resolved on a case by case basis, but there are general guidelines.

Essentially visa problems cease to be a showstopper once you have money.

Re: Ask PG: Did the "apply to YC without an idea" experiment work?

#44

Post by maximz »

mkeblx wrote: post #34
pg wrote: post #21

To be honest, I wasn't sure whether or not the noidea application was live. I had to go look at the source. So it looks like we de facto killed it by never enabling it for s13. Frankly it's not a big deal either way. We only accepted one noidea application last cycle, and IIRC there were only about 50 applications.

Perhaps the whole idea of the noidea app set the stage for the disaster that was S12. Even though only one noidea app was accepted strictly speaking perhaps both a signal sent that the 'idea bar' was lowered and and a lowering of standards. This seems to me to hold a lot of explanatory power, much more so than the idea that multiplying 66 by 1.27 would be the key thing in turning something that works into something u…

I remember there were some organizational issues - is that what you mean by "the disaster that was S12"?

Re: Ask PG: Did the "apply to YC without an idea" experiment work?

#45

Post by pg »

mkeblx wrote: post #34
pg wrote: post #21

To be honest, I wasn't sure whether or not the noidea application was live. I had to go look at the source. So it looks like we de facto killed it by never enabling it for s13. Frankly it's not a big deal either way. We only accepted one noidea application last cycle, and IIRC there were only about 50 applications.

Perhaps the whole idea of the noidea app set the stage for the disaster that was S12. Even though only one noidea app was accepted strictly speaking perhaps both a signal sent that the 'idea bar' was lowered and and a lowering of standards. This seems to me to hold a lot of explanatory power, much more so than the idea that multiplying 66 by 1.27 would be the key thing in turning something that works into something u…

much more so than the idea that multiplying 66 by 1.27 would be the key thing in turning something that works into something unmanageable

Ever run into an n^2 algorithm?

Re: Ask PG: Did the "apply to YC without an idea" experiment work?

#46

Post by pseut »

001sky wrote: post #35
mion wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a chef but I can taste food. That's an unfortunate simplification. Without a technical background, you wouldn't know how long it takes to make a basic CRUD app. "3 weeks? Ok I guess. Oh, 3 months actually? Ok I guess." And what about performance, scalability, costs, etc? You'd have no clue.

you wouldn't know how long it takes to make a basic CRUD app -- Not to nitpick, but you are implying the technical team is untrustworthy or incompetent, unless they are co-founders. While I (would like to) think all founders are trustworthy and competent, being a non-founder should not be a contra-indication.

You're implying that someone who can't program is as capable of hiring trustworthy and skilled programmers as a programmer.

Re: Ask PG: Did the "apply to YC without an idea" experiment work?

#47

Post by tempestn »

badgar wrote: post #39
wildster wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quality of software is beyond what it does, it also means how easy is it to maintain and change.

Quality of software is pretty much irrelevant for startups. The code is usually crap and gets thrown away over and over anyway. The real focus is on people.

If the code is crap, that might explain why it gets thrown away over and over. In my experience, if code is well-written, it should pretty much always be possible to update, revamp, pivot, etc. Rewriting from scratch (especially repeatedly!) is a waste of time that a startup can't afford.

Reminds me of this Joel Spolsky essay: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html

The focus being on people does not preclude writing good code.

Re: Ask PG: Did the "apply to YC without an idea" experiment work?

#48

Post by kami8845 »

pg wrote: post #45
mkeblx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the whole idea of the noidea app set the stage for the disaster that was S12. Even though only one noidea app was accepted strictly speaking perhaps both a signal sent that the 'idea bar' was lowered and and a lowering of standards. This seems to me to hold a lot of explanatory power, much more so than the idea that multiplying 66 by 1.27 would be the key thing in turning something that works into something u…

much more so than the idea that multiplying 66 by 1.27 would be the key thing in turning something that works into something unmanageable Ever run into an n^2 algorithm?

I think the noidea idea was quite good, but quite possibly what struck me as the worst thing about it was the philosophy it implied "oh you don't need an idea to be an entrepreneur, just start a company anywayy!lol". I know that's not the whole truth of it and that many people wind up changing their idea, but that's the feeling it gave me (and I feel many others).

Re: Ask PG: Did the "apply to YC without an idea" experiment work?

#49

Post by argumentum »

Being one of the no idea / barely an idea teams in s12, one of the teams that acrimoniously blew apart and probably one of the teams that led to the changes that YC made for w13, I am glad that "no idea" is no longer an option.

I still view YC's willingness to experiment in an extremely positive light. It's why YC is the innovator, and everyone else (500, techstars etc) are just imitators. That being said, I think "no idea" was a bad idea, for YC as investors and advisors, for the following reasons:

1. It created teams that had not actually worked together for a significant length of time on an idea that all founders believed in. In other words, "teams" which were not actually "teams", but rather a set of individuals with strong credentials.

2. Some of the most important psychological benefits of going through YC, particularly the artificial pressure of Demo Day, have a paradoxical effect on "no idea" teams. The experience of watching good startups grow literally before your eyes at weekly dinners is inspiring, but not particularly conducive to coming up with your own idea. For me at least, it created an almost existential angst.

3. Without an idea, a shared revolutionary vision of the future, there is nothing binding a team together. Each time an idea "failed" there was an intense feeling of loss and personal failure, particularly (as mentioned above) when you see the "idea" teams progressing week on week. That emotional baggage can rip apart formerly great friends .. it did in our case.

Given that, s12 was not a disaster. For one, many s12 teams are doing brilliantly, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more than a few black swans amongst my batchmates. But more importantly, it wasn't a failure in the same sense that Edison's first 9,999 light bulbs (that didn't work) were not failures.

For me personally, "no idea" was a great idea, as I learned more from my YC experience than can be quantified. While I'd never take funding again without an idea (or a working product or service) as it causes unnecessary and often contradictory pressure, my understanding of how to succeed in startups is orders of magnitude greater than it would have been without YC, and for that I will be eternally grateful.

Re: Ask PG: Did the "apply to YC without an idea" experiment work?

#50

Post by jtheory »

OnyeaboAduba wrote: post #22
wildster wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quality of software is beyond what it does, it also means how easy is it to maintain and change.

Of course I said im non technical not non having a brain .

Avoiding all of the analogies... I'm on the technical side, and there's non-trivial work involved in evaluating the quality of the work of other developers.

Particularly for sniffing out security problems... you're fighting a many-headed beast, so unless you're quite technical yourself (and know how to exploit the whole OWASP list, for example), I can't imagine how you'd evaluate someone else's statement that "yes, this will be secure"; even if the lead developer can talk in depth about 10 common security holes, what if s/he simply isn't familiar with #11 and #12? Or lacks the creativity to notice how an architecture choice will severely hamper security in the future?

There's non-trivial work involved in evaluating my own work, and every now & again when I step back to view my own approach to a technical problem I change course.

So -- it's certainly possible to evaluate developers without being technical, but you're still forced to trust their diligence and skill quite a bit. "Talking the talk" of doing things right technically isn't very hard (just read a lot of dev blogs... you'll pick it up); actually doing them right with some consistency is a different beast entirely, and not everyone succeeds even with the best of intentions (...but this is much harder to evaluate).

Post reply on HN