[deleted]
Not to mention numerous competitors with billions of dollars to burn "outcompeting" startups, with political and other ties if that fails. It's a great story though.
How to Start Google
81–90 of 681 posts
Re: How to Start Google
#82> You need three things. You need to be good at some kind of technology, you need an idea for what you're going to build, and you need cofounders to start the company with.
So no word about funding from the CIA and NSA. If you want to build something that changes the world in such a profound way as Google did, you can not possibly expect the powerful not having a word with you. I am inclined to believe that these days you will need influential "friends" with aligned interests at some point.
Re: How to Start Google
#83It’s so deflating to see both YC & PG focus their content almost solely on the younger generations. As someone who came to tech later in their mid-30s, it’s not hard to feel like expired goods when the “thought leaders” of tech are unabashedly gunning for younger minds with little to no acknowledgement of those who may want to start ventures during later stages of life. The more I try to plug myself in, the more it s…
Average age of successful startup founders is 35-45. YC likes young founders because they’re impressionable and exploitable.
That makes them sound a bit more predatory than the reality of it but I get what you mean. When you're younger, by definition, you've got more shots on goal, you don't have other responsibilities (mortgage, kids, partners etc.) so you can take more riskier decisions, and you more have to rely on first principle thinking instead of experience (because you don't have any).
Saying that, I would like to see the advice for higher age ranges as I have a feeling more successful startups tend to be around there.
Re: How to Start Google
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all about managing yourself and expectations. Can a janitor save enough money to rival Gates? No. Not even close. But the same janitor could save enough money to have "FU money" later in life, and only continue working as a janitor if he chose to do so.
> But the same janitor could save enough money to have "FU money" later in life, and only continue working as a janitor if he chose to do so. That is exceedingly doubtful
I agree, and the reason is housing. If housing in this country wasn't fucked up I think it would be possible. As of now, to do this as a janitor you would need to live with roommates or family. You would also need to avoid smoking, alcohol, gambling, and any other money sinks. Then you would need to invest all your savings for years.
Re: How to Start Google
#85It’s so deflating to see both YC & PG focus their content almost solely on the younger generations. As someone who came to tech later in their mid-30s, it’s not hard to feel like expired goods when the “thought leaders” of tech are unabashedly gunning for younger minds with little to no acknowledgement of those who may want to start ventures during later stages of life. The more I try to plug myself in, the more it s…
Average age of successful startup founders is 35-45. YC likes young founders because they’re impressionable and exploitable.
Can you elaborate on this — or any evidence?
Re: How to Start Google
#86This essay isn't a step-by-step guide to building 'Google', rather, a call for young people to consider entrepreneurship as a fulfilling alternative to traditional careers. To maximise their chances of success, Paul suggests: 1. Become a builder: Gain expertise in technology or other fields you're passionate about. (Does not have to just be coding, either!) 2. Start personal projects: Build things you and your friend…
This is the best take I've read yet.
I don't disagree with Paul's choice to focus on entrepreneurship and getting rich here. If you're looking to excite people, tell an exciting story. Captivate imagination. No one gets pumped up (especially at that age) at the mediocre story.
What I find great about his advice is that it is by no means limited to entrepreneurship. Working on passion projects, doing well in school, and learning how to build relationships is valuable even if you're working for someone else.
There's a big space in tech jobs between the "grinding away at code/help desk" and "startup bro" that I feel doesn't get described enough. And that's one thing I'd tack on to Paul's advice, notwithstanding the need to sell the message above. That advice he espouses can also lead to being a really standout contributor at a tech firm, and probably with a higher rate of success than getting a startup to stick. One doesn't have to form a startup to contribute ideas, and there's good money to be made in that space.
I think your choice of wording above is important to call out: The advice "maximizes" the chance of success; but it doesn't guarantee it.
Overall, completely agreed. =)
Re: How to Start Google
#87> It's more exciting to work on your own project than someone else's. And you can also get a lot richer. In fact, this is the standard way to get really rich. 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. People like Paul Graham telling 14-year-olds that basically getting rich is the most important thing is one o…
He's telling kids that they don't have to get a job, and one of the key objections is obviously going to be "but how will I get money". The emphasis in the essay is not getting rich, it's that it's a much more interesting path. And it is.
When Paul Graham is saying this is a talk he gives to 14 and 15 year olds, let's think of who those kids are exactly. There is zero chance he is giving this advice to a general audience at some arbitrary high school, much less students from even a modestly disadvantaged background. People at those places don't know or, even if they did know, wouldn't care who Paul Graham is. No, he's at the school his kids go to. The students are all in the same affluent circles as he is.
This is a pep talk for trust fund kids who can afford to mess around with start ups. It's probably lousy advice for most people outside the affluenza bubble.
Re: How to Start Google
#88This essay glosses over the fact that most startups die a horrible death and earn little to no money for the founders. Somewhere in this essay it needs to say “99% of you who try this will fail”.
I was sad to search for the word "luck" and come up empty. You can do everything right and still fail. You can do everything wrong and win. Sometimes you're just in the right place at the right time, and that external factor is completely out of your control and can be the difference you need.
It's luck in the same way that poker is luck.
Re: How to Start Google
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was sad to search for the word "luck" and come up empty. You can do everything right and still fail. You can do everything wrong and win. Sometimes you're just in the right place at the right time, and that external factor is completely out of your control and can be the difference you need.
I don't disagree that luck is a factor, but what can you do with that information other than console yourself when it doesn't work out?
use the knowledge that your plans may not succeed despite your best efforts to set expectations so that you are not emotionally devastated if this happens, and so that you are prepared in other ways as well.
take the shot, but have a back-up plan, basically.
Re: How to Start Google
#90Am surprised PG gave this talk at a UK school without mentioning an important assumption that they will need to migrate to the US in his opening paragraph.
All the examples he mentioned Google, himself and the Irish Stripe founders had to do the same for their startups.
Sadly in the UK all the current unicorn "startups" are a bit iffy: XTX (high frequency hedgefund), betfair (betting company), tripledot studios (Zynga like company).
Unfortunately mega success in startups doing soemthing innovative is non-existent in Europe and UK in particular. Mistral stands out to how exceptional it is to the rule, and the closest other one I can think of is BioNtech.
Sadly the highest expected route to fortune in the UK remains quant trading in finance. Including starting your own hedge fund.