HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

this is a really nice list.

I've just finished reading the excellent book recentley shared here⁰. Working through it made me realized that the start-up I joined is ignoring every advise in the book. The ycombinater youtube channel there is a great Sam Altman talk on starting-up¹ which drove the point home further (that I've bet on a losing horse).

As an engineer I constantly get bitten by joining awesome sounding new tech start-ups that despite awesome tech they don't survive the second year (they find a market fit and fail when scaling bc they ignore all the human aspects of what it means to be a company). And in my case it's never the tech that was at fault but lack of creating processes under which successful patterns can be repeated. Somehow it's always the dynamic of the people that dooms those projects. Every time I end up coming to the hard realization that there is no other option for me to quit the company after I've wasted a lot of time and nerves, and it's often more ugly than it should be.

⁰ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17456999

¹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoqgAy3h4OM

⬐ brennanm

That's exactly why I wanted to start our podcast (#4 on that list). Every time I sit down with a post-seed founder, no matter the scale, the conversation always devolves to "people problems"

At every startup the customers are different, the pain is different, the tech is different. But as people, no matter where we work, we're largely facing the same problems: "people stuff" Would love to see Startups get better at exposing and sharing good solutions to those problems

>"The main thing they appear to look for is viable business, future vision, then team. I highly recommend applying."

It seems to me — based on YC's resources I've read — the passion, personality, and relationships of the company founders come first— including how willing they are to be flexible with their idea.

Jessica Livingston on what they look for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPd5vgXJ-R4

They also often say how ideas are a dime a dozen, mentioning time and again that most businesses who join YC end up changing their idea completely. They even went as far as to accept founders without an idea at all one year:

http://paulgraham.com/notnot.html

"In a sense, it's not a problem if you don't have a good idea, because most startups change their idea anyway. In the average Y Combinator startup, I'd guess 70% of the idea is new at the end of the first three months. Sometimes it's 100%. In fact, we're so sure the founders are more important than the initial idea that we're going to try something new this funding cycle. We're going to let people apply with no idea at all. If you want, you can answer the question on the application form that asks what you're going to do with "We have no idea." If you seem really good we'll accept you anyway. We're confident we can sit down with you and cook up some promising project."

more related articles from the Paul Graham:

http://paulgraham.com/start.html

http://paulgraham.com/bronze.html

http://paulgraham.com/ideas.html

http://paulgraham.com/ds.html

On the other hand, Sam Altman discusses, in the Stanford YC Startup School videos, how the overall idea certainly does matter and that thinking "the idea doesn't matter" has become a myth in silicon valley. He says the most successful companies have been an idea first, and a startup second.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoqgAy3h4OM#t=22m52s

I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, leaning in one direction depending on the founders' mindsets and knowledge. I wish they would be a bit more clear about this since both opposing arguments are being advised through their resources.

Either way, I look forward to start applying to batches when I feel ready. Perhaps I'll apply without being ready to help gain some clarity as you suggested.

⬐ forgotmysn

Agreed. I worked for a YC company who's founders went through YC before they even had a company. In fact, they still hadn't landed on one by the time they came out. But they were Stanford and MIT grads, and insanely well-connected.

⬐ gt_

When I hear that founders are more important than ideas, I wonder how much of “founders” refers to the founders’ upper-class culture sync and connections. Of course, it never represents all of that, but, could founders with only intelligence, teamwork and ingenuity skills suffice on their own?

⬐ forgotmysn

It's definitely complex. A strong network doesn't necessarily signify wealthy background, although it is likely. Rather, it demonstrates an ability to connect with people who can aid in your success, and that ability is a necessary component of being a successful founder.

⬐ gt_

That makes sense. I wouldn't want to underrate the importance of ability to connect with the right people, which is a pretty complicated thing as it is, and there are only so many ways by which to evaluate it.

⬐ lettergram

I also highly recommend Startup School, also provided by YC:

https://www.startupschool.org/

That's what helped me get my most recent project ready:

https://projectpiglet.com/

I'd describe it almost as a "startups anonymous" group, where you have a mentor who's went through a startup, weekly talks, and a group to help you get off the ground.

In regards to the resource you've read, I can only tell you what I have seen. To some extent, the viability of your business comes from the team and future vision. You have to vet with customers, know the space, be excited etc.

⬐ gibbiv

As an aspiring startup creator currently working on a project, I got so much value form this first video course in YC's startup school (https://www.startupschool.org/). Sam Altman, President of Y Combinator, and Dustin Moskovitz, Cofounder of Facebook and Asana, both give succinct, memorable lectures.

Here are some of my takeaways from the course...

From Dustin:

- Rather than starting a startup, it could be better to join a small or large company with traction (more resources, more reach, better chance of success, potentially equal payout if you join early) - Starting a startup is fucking hard (long hours, not glamorous, high chance of failure) - You should only start a startup if you “can’t not do it” (think of yourself 30 years from now -- will you be saying to yourself, “Wow, I should have given that thing a real shot?”) - You should only start a startup if you have passion and aptitude (you’re the best person to do it, you want to do it, and you’d be depriving the world of something incredibly valuable if you didn’t do it) - To not fail, you need to be persistent in finding new ideas and accept when one idea isn’t catching on with the market

From Sam:

- What’s on your side as a founder is that it can be very expensive for investors to write off crazy ideas - Machine learning and A.I. are going to be the next big things (like the Internet, smartphone, etc) - It’s easier to start a hard company than an easy company because you attract a lot of great talent and interest when you have a big idea - Cofounders are good, but only have a cofounder that you have a shared history with - A cofounder that shares your vision is better than a cofounder with the skills you need - When you start a startup, go niche/narrow -- start with a smaller market that will really love you - Get to know your users really well (visit them, ask them hard questions, spend the day with them) - Only hire good people; don’t hire mediocre people just because you need people now (“the team you build is the company you build”) - Don’t give up -- ever -- if you believe in what you’re building and people want it (someone applied to YC seven times before getting accepted) - You have an obligation to yourself and your investors to take care of your health