Look, startups suck. Failed startups suck. Successful startups suck. Silicon Valley sucks. But so does working regular jobs, and so do a lot of things. The problem here is probably that you had the wrong expectations, and then when reality hit, it hit really hard.
If you want to play the game, you better be mentally prepared for dealing with a lot of shit. Egos are going to clash. Friendships are going to be strained. Stress is going to occur. To use one of my favorite quotes my dad always said to me, "that is life in the big city". Startups are not romantic -- they are a slog.
But... if you are building something you want to build, it can be worth it. Just don't expect it to be easy.
Startups don't suck! After having worked at plenty over the years I don't agree at all. I guess it depends how you respond to change and volatility. Some people find comfort in things staying the same, but I enjoy the high rate of change in startups. I enjoy the pace, sometimes it can be stressful but after a few you don't get too worried - investors come and go, products come and go, fortunes comes and go. It's not the destination that matters, if all you're focused on is the exit then you'll miss the fun. For me it's about staying current. After being a software dev for 25 years I still absolutely love the latest jquery widget, or that Factorie has just hit 1.0 and I can do Dependency Parsing in Scala, or that Pig can now talk to Spark, etc.. To enjoy startups you have to love technology. It's like dating, if all you're thinking about is getting the girl into bed it won't end well, if instead you enjoy the conversation and are genuinely having a good time then ... who knows.
In my experience, if you love technology and tinkering, you should absolutely not work at a startup.
In the first years, a startup's main objective is results, results, results. Now is not the time to play with the latest node.js module, it's about picking the technology that will allow you to reach your goal the fastest, period. Compromise on that and another startup built on PHP will beat you to the punch.
If you love tinkering, join a big company. Spend a few months there to prove yourself to your colleagues and superiors and once you have that, you will have no problems carving out a comfortable 20% time that only you know about that you can use to tinker with the latest hotness.
Just don't do that at a startup, or be prepared to be the reason why the startup failed.
My experience matches yours. I work in a huge company, and my 20% time is more like 60% time. Every year or so I'm working on a completely new project and technology of my choosing, which is largely what has kept me here for the last decade. I don't have to worry about the company not being able to pay its bills if it takes me a bit longer than anticipated to prove a concept, and my reputation affords me the luxury of doing so.
I agree, but I don't think it's just that you can't play with the latest node.js module: you also can't really spend time on developing new technology or making real technological advances, especially anything that has high risk or a >12 months to payoff. A startup's main job is to put together a product, ASAP, and ideally also monetize it. This usually means relying on technology that has already been developed, at least mostly: it's not the place for R&D. An ideal situation for a startup is that the technology already exists, maybe has even been lightly validated, but just hasn't been turned into a product. You see the market opening, and you take some existing pieces of technology, putting them together into an MVP with the right pitch and business strategy.
There are some exceptions for startups whose real pitch is precisely the R&D, and who are able to pull large amounts of up-front funding from investors who are willing to bet on the technological development. Tesla is one example, in part because Musk's large amount of self-funding meant it could afford to take a full 5 years between founding and product-to-market. Very few startups have 5-year R&D runways, though; if you want to do R&D on that timescale you're usually better off at a place like Google or MSR, in parts of academia, or even a big engineering company (BBN, Lockheed, Intel, etc.).
I'm sorry to call you out, but this post is pretty depressing. You are speaking as if what you are saying is some known fact, that startups are not the place for R&D.
Startups are the best hope for R&D to make it out of the lab. You have been brainwashed by the Lean Startup movement. It's a good strategy but it is not the only way to skin the cat, and if you are looking to change the world it's probably a bad way to do it.
Look at the greatest companies that have come out of Silicon Valley over the last several decades, and you will see companies which started out with products that took a lot of time, capital, and R&D to launch. The two largest market cap companies in the world, Google and Apple, were not created through the Lean Startup approach of throwing together existing technology and pivoting around trying to find a local optimum, but came about from the hope that if you spend your time up front, get investment, do the R&D and hard work, and build something with an eye towards the future, you will be rewarded. Intel. HP. Microsoft. Should I keep listing companies that did big R&D up front?
Who do you think is more likely to change the world, the latest startup that throws together some B2B app on AWS with no vision and just is trying to find product market fit, get their Google acquisition, and live happily ever after, or companies like Oculus, Meta, MakerBot, hell even Soylent, who have put in serious big-bet, R&D, and say lets shoot for the moon or lose everything trying? I'm not saying that the lean startup approach shouldn't be done ever, but to get up and claim that startups are not the place for R&D basically goes against everything that makes Silicon Valley an amazing place. If this is the mentality that comes out of the pop-culture-ization of startup life I don't want to be a part of it.
Google's founders did the up-front R&D in academia: they were Stanford grad students who developed PageRank, and then launched a company to take it to market. And Microsoft's big breakthrough was based on technology they didn't even develop! They got a contract to deliver an OS for IBM, but has no OS, so they bought 86-DOS, quickly made about 2 months of modifications to get it to fit the specs IBM demanded, renamed it to MS-DOS, and delivered it to IBM. Or take Sun: they shipped a computer architecture that Andy Bechtolsheim had largely developed while a grad student at Stanford, paired with a commercialization of UC Berkeley's 4.1BSD (rebranded SunOS 1.0).
I think startups can indeed be a good way to take existing R&D and productize it, i.e. "make it out of the lab", but I don't think they develop a lot of it.
The Google guys' PhD work was a prologue to their startup. They went into it with novel technology that they had developed themselves. There is a huge difference between this approach and saying "no more R&D, lets take what's out there and build a product with it." When they started Google they certainly did plenty of R&D to improve their algorithms and crawler, and it's been continuing ever since.
For Microsoft the reference there was not their (extremely lucky) deal with MS-DOS but all of the other work they did: from the early BASIC days to the days of Windows where they did extensive R&D in order to leapfrog their competitors.
You ignored my other examples but the fact is that the Lean Startup approach to startups is a relatively new thing, only really fits for web-oriented startups where up front development costs are low thanks to SAAS and open source, and even then the companies you might be able to point to as definitive success stories are YC companies and maybe companies that are the latest round of tech IPOs taking a Lean slant on how they found their product market fit. Eric Reis's startup failed! Find me a biotech startup, find me an energy startup, find me a robotics or hardware startup that doesn't do R&D on day zero. The YC model of developing a web application using open source software and launching on Heroku to get revenue for a B2B need is a very narrow slice both in time and space of the way innovation happens. Hell, look at any legendarily successful software companies that aren't in the web sphere of the last 10 years, like iD Software, Adobe, Pixar, Wolfram, and so on and you see R&D focused companies from their beginning.
I'm not really defending the "Lean Startup" approach; I don't think it's very socially useful or interesting, but I do think it's probably profitable on average (hence why VCs like it).
The approach of doing a university spinoff using your own tech is a model I do like, and I agree it's a way to develop new tech and also bring it out of the lab. But I think the academic part there is key: you get some R&D runway up front before you start the startup and need to make money, rather than doing a startup up-front. You can then "afford" to start the startup once at least some of the high-risk work has been done and you're reasonably close to a product. Since you mention Wolfram, that's probably an even better example of that than Google, given Wolfram's rather lengthy prologue to his startup: he spent 8 years at Caltech (1979-1987, first as PhD student, then as professor) developing the Symbolic Manipulation Program, a precursor to Mathematica. Then he spun off a company in 1987 and launched Mathematica in 1988. I don't think he would've been able to do the same kind of initial R&D in a startup as he was able to do at Caltech.
fair enough -- i misunderstood your post. i consider "PhD turns their research into a startup" to be a great approach and completely antithetical to the lean startup model which says you do customer development first, not putz around in your lab for 5 years developing nascent tech.
But when would you decide to transition from research to startup? Probably when you decide that you can apply that research to something profitable, and do it very quickly, and when the research seems to be at a point where development is scalable (i.e. if you throw more people at the problem then the problem will be solved faster.)
I'd think you'd want most or all of the experimenting to be out of the way.
> Look at the greatest companies that have come out of Silicon Valley over the last several decades,
Facebook started on PHP and Google on C++.
The software innovations that these companies brought to the world didn't happen in the start up phase but years later, once they had grown sufficiently big that they had resources to devote to R&D in an effort to streamline and optimize their existing infrastructure.
I talk to a lot of startups on a daily basis, most of them are either built on Java or Ruby on Rails. I don't see any of them building their v1 with Clojure, Kotlin, Ceylon, Idris or Ermine or any technology created in the past five years.
I half agree with you, in that it certainly is about results, results, results. But that does not mean you will hate it if you love technology and tinkering.
It does mean that you need to be pragmatic and prepared to pick the sub-optimal choices and check your ego at the door for things to work well. You can love technology for what it lets you achieve without getting hung up in not having the ability to always do things perfectly.
If you can deal with that, chances are that if you pick a startup that is technically challenging you will also get to tinker. The constraints are just different.
I've certainly had people come into dev teams in startups and get annoyed at technology choices and constantly argue for changing them (one even tried to get me fired, and almost ended up getting fired himself as a result because the way he went about it backfired spectacularly) because they disagreed with choices that laid firm not because they necessarily were ideal any more - startups change quickly - but because they were good enough and taking the time or resources for a change would have been totally unacceptable.
If you're that guy who needs things to be perfect and who will put in lots of time and energy trying to change things that aren't perfect, then a startup is not right for you - you might get lucky and agree with everything, but more likely you'll find yourself endlessly frustrated because people refuse to listen to your suggestions to rewrite stuff unless they are necessaryright now.
But even though I insist on the pragmatic choices in a startup, I've also had plenty of opportunities to tinker at startups. The issue is that you need to constantly think about what gets the job done most efficiently and fast, without too much technical debt, not what is ideal.
You also need to be an earlier employee to get that freedom at most startups - if you get in as one of the first few tech hires you have lots of freedom to make architectural decisions and tinker (as long as you're focused on the company goals. But then there certainly is a long period of slogging through things that might not be very exciting before the company (hopefully) gets large enough to be able to afford more unfocused/unstructured tinkering on the side as exploration again.
If you're right, clearly Larry/Sergei, elon musk, Steve Wozniak, etc have no place in start ups... I think you picked a controversial statement that's easy to poke holes in
Take a look at the technologies that were used to bootstrap all these startups:
- Google: C++
- Microsoft: assembly
- Apple: assembly
- eBay/PayPal: Java/C++
Like I said, there is simply no room in the early years of a start up to experiment with recent technology. I'd go further and claim that it's actually critical to use older, established technology to get your startup off the ground so you can focus on your idea without being hampered by technological glitches.
The initial Google work was done at Stanford, Woz worked for HP while developing the Apple I, and I'm not sure which "startup" you're referring to for Elon, but the early Confinity investors included a major bank and one of the CyberCash founders, while Tesla and SpaceX were necessarily heavily-funded long-term projects that were inherently unlike what tech VCs typically go for.
You've listed people whose stories bear little resemblance to the vast majority of little tech startups that subsist on ramen and go through accelerators.
I think his statement is correct in 99%+ of the cases. Of course there are a few startups who will "disrupt" a market with implementation of a new technology. On the other hand, assuming that the only reason to start a company is "changing the world" is very stupid and not how the world works. Thus his statement that if you want to "tinker with cutting edge technology" you shouldn't be in a startup is holds true in the overwhelming number of situations.
tldr; hipsters will grossly overestimate their ability to "change the world" with that "brilliant idea" they had this morning in the shower, so starting a new company is pretty much the worst path to take, if you want to "tinker with technology".
> In my experience, if you love technology and tinkering, you should absolutely not work at a startup.
This need not be essentially true. Although delivering results is of highest priority, delivering "right" results is even more important, results that create your USP, results that set you way ahead of your competitors. And that requires right amount tinkering, if you want to call it that. And that tinkering is a lot of fun - to deliver world class results in the least amount of time possible.
I agree that building a product for customers is the end goal -- and that using every shiny new thing under the roof would be a distraction (with usual caveats/nuances of not being afraid to adapt new and promising technology when there's a good case to be made that it will bring concrete benefits -- e.g., Hadoop was a somewhat experimental platform in early 2008 and I was taking a technical risk introducing it in a 15 person advertising startup, but it was a huge net win).
However, to me love of technology is not playing with the latest node.js modules. While node.js is not my cup of tea, I can see how that be fun (I enjoy playing with the latest OCaml libraries, C++11 features, golang, etc..), but ultimately that alone isn't about technology. To me building technology is about reading a paper, extracting the core ideas, and applying them knowledge to implement a feature customers and no competitors offer is.
If we take this definition of technology, then there's plenty of place in startups for people who love technology. It depends on what the startup is building: if innovative technology (as opposed to an innovative business model) is at the core of the company's product, it's a great place for technologists. (There is of course nothing wrong with innovative business models -- nor are innovative business models mutually exclusive with innovative technologies; indeed, some of the greatest companies have combined the two!)
Now with big companies it is absolutely true that even if technology is not the core, challenges around availability, scalability, performance, etc... necessitate more than a trivial investment in technology.
"Startup" and "big company" are also not binary. I've joined LinkedIn when it was may be 200-300 people and even then we were solving some rather tough technical problems (you can read about some of the problems we solved in this paper that was accepted to USENIX FAST -- http://static.usenix.org/events/fast/tech/full_papers/Sumbal...). Although, the focus would have been more immediate had I joined LinkedIn when it was a 10 person startup -- but even at fairly early stages, the team was solving problems related to search and graph traversal, etc...)
There are people writing line of business code in 5000 person companies and there are people implementing query optimizers in FPGA in 10 person startups. It's very hard to make any generalizations and make categerical statements such as "if you love technology and tinkering, you should absolutely not work at a startup" or "to enjoy startups you have to love technology" (there are plenty of great startups founded by people who loved something more than they loved technology -- and these startups have made my life much more enjoyable as well!) I've done work that I am proud of in companies ranging in size from 15 to 14,000 people and learned tons in all of these environments (with various trade offs for companies of different sizes).
(Shameless plug: I hack on distributed systems in C++ at Cloudera -- and we do plenty of other cool things, despite not being a big company. Like distributed systems, databases/data stores, file systems, query processing, and more? Drop me a line.)
I think this represents a bad side of valley echo chamber. All those "technology" things you mentioned are just fads or minor incremental improvements that people of this kind of ideology trick themselves into believing that keeping up to date with is "keeping up with rapid pace of technology" when it is ... well sort of just noise.
One day your on a huge blog/well known publication and your traffic is going nuts. The next day its all gone.
One day your celebrating your investment/funding win. The next your struggling to find more money and or accept it's not going to happen.
One day your invited to demo your latest tech to one of the big tech firms thinking it's your big win you've worked years for. The next you realize/wonder damn did they just steal our hard work - why did they treat us like garbage?
So many ups and downs. Sometimes you just want to give up, but you don't because this what you love to do and if you stop/give up on one tech idea you'll get restless and do another!
You got "you're" wrong 4 times in that 5 sentence post. I know it's pedantic, but this stuff is important if you're trying to make a good impression in written communication. Why take a chance on looking slightly careless, when it's easy to get it right?
I just thought about this: pg complained about people with strong accents potentially being at a disadvantage. I've noticed a few other YC founders (and successful sfba founders in general) who have strong accents; they're at a disadvantage, but it's not terminal. (the worst accents compared to overall level of success otherwise are probably Singlish speakers; EE are sometimes thick accents but generally standard vocabulary and grammar, and Indian English is a little bit of vocabulary but mainly pacing and accent, and generally not very far off from SFBA American English after a few months)
What I don't see is a lot of founders who are bad at written communication. Maybe it's self-selection (those who can't write are less likely to try to write online, so I won't see them as frequently, if ever), but it really seems like being good at written English is a requirement for being a successful tech entrepreneur now. "Good at written English" doesn't necessarily mean perfectly idiomatic and grammatical American College English, but clear and persuasive when the reader is fluent in (American, College, Middle/Upper class, Standard) English.
The nice thing is written English is much easier for "tech people" to learn; the best training is reading lots of well-written English, and you need to do that to participate in the technology and startup world anyway. The keys are: 1) having good source material (there's a tipping point, like some sizable non-US English communities -- which is why Singlish is a thing) 2) actually caring.
Replace Drew's intentional lack of capitalization with this "your/you're swap," and you've got the same situation.
It seems like people are just prejudiced, and are so prejudiced that they feel justified in calling people out on a forum under the guise of "helping" them.
Yes, grammar is powerful, but this isn't a situation where it matters. They were expressing empathy. They weren't writing a press release. And we can't seem to find it in ourselves to avoid bikeshedding this thread.
It seems like people are just prejudiced, and are so prejudiced that they feel justified in calling people out on a forum under the guise of "helping" them.
When learning a language, I love gentle corrections to the many inevitable faults, and wish people would do it more often, because it helps you improve. Perhaps that varies with the person, but please don't interpret them as insults or bikeshedding to reinforce someone's ego, as they very rarely are. Communication is also about authority, tone and style, so just being able to guess what someone meant is not always good enough.
This was just a small note to this person about a repeated mistake which is undermining their credibility. If they take note, their communication will be improved for the rest of their life by not confusing these two homophones.
Actually, you comprehended them just fine. This is why I'm saying people are prejudiced. A prejudice is when people aren't consciously aware of why they're mistaken.
I picked a bad example (which is an example itself of what I'm talking about; it's not specific to the rules of grammar...)
"How is babby formed" is still generally a bad question, marginally worse than "Where do babies come from?", in that it's unclear if the focus is impregnation or gestation, and "babby" could be potentially misinterpreted as "babble".
IMO OP was borderline "bad at written communication" too, at least if the goal was to convey factual details of the situation. It was entertaining, but unclear. Sometimes obscuring key details is the goal, but generally not in technical or business writing.
It's almost impossible to imagine someone reading their comment and misunderstanding them, unless they were bad at reading English.
The point you're trying to make is based on the mistaken assumption that they were being unclear. They weren't. Nothing was obscured. No one seriously believed that they meant to imply ownership instead of "you are."
They also weren't doing technical or business writing. It was empathy, which is sometimes helpful.
Any time that mistake is made in something I'm reading, I have to read backward and forward several times to ensure I know which it was supposed to be. This requires additional time and effort.
At the very least, not making an effort to use the correct word is extremely disrespectful of your audience and their time.
This. Time and effort that you make someone else spend on your words is time and effort they no longer have to spend on your message/meaning.
When you're in a situation when your message is competing with others, the clearer wording will out-compete muddled wording. That could be in advertising, recruiting, pitching, evangelizing, or any number of places where you want to influence the reader in some way. Every Joule they waste puzzling out your words is one they won't use being influenced (positively) by your message.
How often do you see you're/your confused in professional advertising or press releases? Very rarely.
The real problem with grammatical errors is that regardless of whether or not the person can understand you, you're decreasing their level of processing fluency. High processing fluency has been shown to be linked with positive affect [1]. This means that by writing with grammatical errors, you are literally making the reader feel less positively about you and what you're saying.
Daniel Kahneman refers to this as "cognitive ease" vs. "cognitive strain". Making your writing correct and easy to read increases cognitive ease, which makes your readers "like what [they] see, believe what [they] hear, trust [their] intuitions and feel that the current situation is comfortably familiar." [2]
Grammar is important for making a good impression as well, but that's really not the key selling point, especially for anyone in business. The key point is that if you want to persuade anyone of anything, whether it's to invest in your startup, to buy your product, or to leave their cushy Google job to work for you, you will be more persuasive if you use proper grammar.
I agree with robotresearcher. The grammar mistake influenced negatively the way I interpreted your words and my perception of you.
It happens at an unconscious level.
Without errors I would just get the meaning. With the errors, I see them first and get distracted.
The same happened with the article: too well written to be enjoyable.
You could feel the effort in finding clever ways to say simple things.
The fact that you didn't thank him for taking the time to help you, makes me think that for you self improvement is less important than looking smart.
As he said, <I'm not knocking you down but trying to help you from making trivial mistakes that change people's perception and distract and detract from the important things>
That explains it perfectly.
Honestly, I'm not knocking you down but trying to help you from making trivial mistakes that change people's perception and distract and detract from the important things.
your => you're * 2
rode => ridden
Again, why not get it right, since there's no doubt you can?
You say you're concerned about perception and trying to help him. Honestly, do you think people perceive someone who makes a typo worse or the person who is repeatedly correcting them on an internet forum worse?
It's not a typo, it's a repeated grammatical error. I perceive someone repeatedly correcting someone else's errors as probably having too much time on their hands. I perceive someone repeatedly making grade-school level errors (as covered elsewhere, this is not a common ESL error) as not worth my time to even read. Up to you which of those is worse.
Was wondering if anyone would correct me for calling it a typo instead of a grammar error since if I wrote "your" instead of "you're" it would have been too obvious. Seriously though, I used to judge people the same way right after undergrad. I was young and thought people who made such errors were stupid. But, over the years I encountered some very successful people that could barely write and had to reflect a bit. "How is guy is a self-made multimillionaire when he can barely write?" I realized that my dismissing of people like that made me feel superior but it wasn't actually a good filter. Obviously you've reached a different conclusion by deciding that people who make grammar errors on internet forums aren't worth your time, so to each his own.
There are enough independent correlates of success that any given successful person will almost certainly be missing one of them, if not several. Writing well is one example. That said, it does still correlate to success, and therefore still functions as evidence. There are too many comments on the internet to act as though every one is equally worth reading. It makes more sense to do a quick Bayesian update on the available evidence and move on to a comment that is more likely to be valuable. This isn't a value judgment about the person who made the comment, it's just pragmatism.
Oh, I misinterpreted what you meant then. Regardless, your logic is sound and has lead me to think about things I hadn't considered. So, from now on I won't disregard grammar errors but will instead use them as evidence. That said, I'm kind of stuck on how to proceed when the ideas in a comment are trending towards valuable but I reach a grammar error. Maybe how to handle those is just a function of personal preference or available time? Also, based on your experience, should I consider user names as part of the available evidence?
They're weak evidence. If the first half of a comment is valuable it's probably worth reading the rest. And yes, username is strong evidence. I read every comment I see from patio11, for example.
Does it really matter? Forum posts are stream of consciousness, more often than not typed on our phones and posted with at most a quick reread. For me the content is several orders of magnitude more important than spelling. Personally I find myself discounting more those that find the need to trifle over spelling much like I discount those that never dare to risk but choose to profit by critiquing in hindsight. Spelling might matter when trying to please the establishments but it's the underlying thoughts however spelt that matter.
It doesn't matter all that much. Looking back at why I was motivated to offer a tip, I think when the poster pleaded "why did they treat us like garbage?" I wondered if his/her written communication could be contributing to that.
This:
> "it's the underlying thoughts however spelt that matter."
is not true. You didn't write your post in txtspk because that is not the locally acceptable way of communicating. It could be comprehensible, unambiguous and require less typing, but it just doesn't meet the tacitly agreed standards in this community and you would not expect your ideas to have the impact they deserve if you chose to write that way.
You ever thought that everyone on HN might not be American or speak english as a first language? Its a comment on an internet forum, there is no need for the active grammar schooling. Your trivial, holier-than-thou, grammer nazi bullshit actively discourage other posters who may not speak english fluently from posting. [1]
While I agree that correcting grammar isn't usually that productive, I think that mixing up "your" and "you're" is probably indicative of a native English speaker.
I doubt that "your" and "you're" are homophones in most other languages. As a native English speaker myself, I often slip up and write "your" when I mean "you're" because they both sound the same in my head and it's quicker to type "your".
I think that a non-native speaker would be less like to make this mistake, because it requires the writer to decide to contract the pronoun and the verb and then forget to use an apostrophe.
I think this is far more likely to happen if you're simply typing out a stream of consciousness than if you're translating your thoughts from a different language.
Yes, as a non-native, I agree that it is not very common (almost never) for me to mix them up because I prononunce them differently.
Another reason non-natives don't do this mistake might be that usually they are thought the written language first, so schools concentrate on grammatical issues more.
Adding another datapoint, as a non-native speaker myself, I believe I've rarely (if ever) mixed them up.
As the parent commenter said, I've also noticed in the past that this mix up occurs usually among native English speakers.
I've noticed it with other languages too, that native speakers often mix up homophones, probably because as a native speaker you write as you would speak and either you don't care or don't even think about it.
As a non-native speaker I agree with this. But I've noticed something interesting: before I was aware that mixing up the two was common with native speakers it would never happen in my own writing, but once I realized people do make this mistake I became susceptible to making it too. I still don't, but now I sometimes have to make a conscious effort to differentiate the two. It's amazing where social learning can show it's effects. (And BTW, I think I would just kill myself if I ever mixed up affect and effect, I see that a lot, and for some reason it annoys the hell out of me.)
I hope you do realize that the errors are much harder to interpret for the non-native speakers? Where the native speaker understands, that the writer simply mixed up two words, the non-native speaker wastes a lot of time trying to parse the sentence without correcting the error. I've seen it happen many times with my colleagues.
It may seem obvious, but I never before considered how the simple grammatical mistakes I frequently make disproportionately hinder the ability of non-native speakers to efficiently comprehend my posts.
Your comment has given me an extra incentive to carefully proofread my future HN comments before posting.
OK, sure. I get it. I think this is a place to offer ideas great and small that might give each other a hand. If this kind of tip is not appropriate, I certainly don't need to chip in.
I agree with the other comment that this thread is toxic. I didn't intend that. I guess I learned a lesson.
Silicon Valley has its own ideology, and HN is the center of it. Any statement of "...is awesome" is a good candidate for finding the foundations of this ideology. Any good ideology has to encompass a diversity of views to survive. In this case, we see the public prostration of the spat out soul who voluntarily subjects their weakness to the crowd in the name of self-development. Addressing whether this is a good or bad thing would be to enter into the terms of which this particular ideology functions.
Most ideologies typically benefit a certain class of people: clergy, politicians, a bureaucracy, academia, venture capital.
That wasn't a statement of ideology; it was rather more a concise way to say "you reminded me why I come here instead of somewhere else: it is, on average, composed of people like you, and I enjoy the atmosphere this creates. Thank you for being you, and for contributing to making this the kind of place I enjoy."
When you see "community X is awesome" posted within community X, it's mostly a recent convert looking back and realizing that wherever they just came from was a comparatively bad fit for their personality and views.
I hear it a lot, here, from hackers switching from /r/programming to HN. I hear it on LessWrong from people who came from, for example, the atheist community, or the skeptic community, and didn't realize it was possible to talk about those subjects without constant dick-waving and chest-beating regarding their respective out-groups.
Either way, it's almost the opposite reaction to what you're accusing it of being: it's not like joining a cult; it's more like leaving high-school and realizing you can make friends with people because they talk about things you like, and behave in ways that don't annoy you, instead of just putting up with them because they're constantly forced to be around you for six hours a day.
That is precisely the sentiment revealed by my comment, from being a long time lurker from reddit and finally switching over to HN full-time. The novelty of widespread intelligent discourse will wear off soon enough the more I participate.
This comment thread is toxic, and it's regrettable that you created it. Look at the replies you've engendered. Quibbling over grammar is not why most people read HN.
Drew Houston writes without capitalization. Would you say the same to him? Ideas are what matter, not apostrophes.
On your second point, I think there's a clear difference between consistent lack of capitalization that is obviously a stylistic quirk, and simply using a homophone because you don't know (or, I guess as it turns out, don't care) that you're doing so. This is a common mistake and not usually due to ESL/EAL.
But I won't do it again, as it evidently is not a net good in this medium. Sorry, folks.
"Not a net good in this medium" is exactly the right way to look at this. In a more robust environment, your (IMO) true and well-intentioned original comment would not have been a problem.
Apostrophes, proper capitalization, punctuation, properly dividing text into paragraphs... all these orthographic conventions are essential to communicating ideas. So if ideas matter, apostrophes matter too. Capitalization even more so, no matter who the person is.
Thank you for informing me. Now that I know this, I'll look more seriously at Dropbox alternatives. This degree of carelessness and disrespect for others is dangerous in the CEO of a company asking me to trust them with my data.
I agree, there are some great highs, the lows really suck. In the end you have to enjoy doing really hard things and things you don't enjoy or this place won't be right for you.
I feel the best way working with others on a startup is to stop focusing on being right, or trying to prove yourself to others, and just focus on product-market fit, revenue, growth, etc. If you're going to be made a fool, but the product succeeds, then so be it.
From my read, it came down to founders issues, which is a big reason why startups fail, or at the very least have breakups. It's something I know very well.
At the end, when things suck (and they will totally suck), and you have to drive hard, you gotta know that the people who are with you, are those you can be with the next 8-10 years.
Making money and real wealth ain't suck at all. And a startup that makes money ain't suck. It's just that this trend of getting funded first that brings frustrations and clashes. Investors want their money back and multiplicated, you the founders have to work hard just to meet this expectation. I far prefer for instance start anything that will make 500k per year without any VC fundings than take 1 million from VC and have to make a 10 million business from and being in the red for 2 or more years, a lot stressful and frustrating.
Excellent point - I think working at a regular job is important to appreciate what you might be getting out of a startup and what kind of expectations you should be having going in.
If I have learned one thing from reading HN here it is:
If you want ownership (and by that I mean an equal say), you want to do a lifestyle business, not a startup. Once you start accepting other people's money, you get trapped into their expectations of an exit strategy.
That exit strategy ends in one of three ways:
1. Your startup is sold and either you have a regular job or you no longer have any say. Either way you hopefully have some money.
2. Your startup goes public, makes you very wealthy, and now you are beholden to the SEC, tax lawyers, accounting lawyers, etc.
3. Your startup fails and ends.
That's it. You may have a great idea, with scalable revenue, etc. But if you want control you have to fund it yourself. That's one reason why I doubt Efficito will ever take investment money (my co-founder and I are on the same page there) from outside parties.
Where startups are better is where you want help to achieve greater rewards and don't mind being beholden to investors. That's the decision that has to be made before even looking at incubators.
Not to nitpick, but I don't think that you really mean to say "lifestyle business". When I think of a lifestyle business, I think of a smallish, relatively passive revenue generator.
I think that there might be roughly three types of companies: those financially backed through equity, small passive-ish businesses that allow the owner to go off and live their "lifestyle", and boot-strapped (equity intact) active corporations.
Personally, I want to retain all equity/control and would choose to dominate the market rather than milk the profit margin.
Anyway, maybe I've missed the mark. I'd love to further flesh this out.
Actually a lifestyle company is pretty much the term for any business that makes a great living for the owners and employees, but never results in significant profit for investors.
Investors won't touch a company with a 10 foot pole if they get a whiff of lifestyle corporation because they'll never get their investment back. But this doesn't make it a bad company, despite what you read around here on HN. In reality a lifestyle company can be just about the greatest, most satisfying and financially rewarding job that you can have. You just won't get any investor telling you that because there's nothing there for them.
> Investors won't touch a company with a 10 foot pole if they get a whiff of lifestyle corporation because they'll never get their investment back.
It's not actually that they won't get their investment back. It's that they won't get it back in a form that really works for them. If I were to offer a VC an investment plan that would mean reliable payments of 30% of what they invested every year starting in five years and continuing forever, that would not be an attractive deal. Would they get their investment back many times over? Sure. But the thing is, it wouldn't happen all at once as a large payoff.
By lifestyle business, I mean one which is a lifestyle, rather one that is tied to the exit strategies of investors. This ranges from a small retail outlet to a growing software firm that is bootstrapped.
The difference is that you are interested in long-term earnings on your revenue, not in making it big by selling shares (either via the stock market or by selling the business). The real difference, I think, is that a lifestyle business is not for sale. And that's a deal breaker if by an investor you want to make money by selling your interest.
+1 I agree that a lifestyle business is the best way to go for most people, largely because of the control it gives us over our own lives.
I just started taking an entrepreneurship class this week, and it has helped me understand that what I have been doing the last 15 years is entrepreneurship/life style business (I live in a low cost of living remote area, and just write and work remotely helping customers as I want to - I work relatively few hours per week and almost all of my work is pleasurable).
I compare my business with two friends who were at our house last night. One owns the best Mexican restaurant in town (for 30 years) and the other once owned a bunch of clothing stores. They are also entrepreneurs who have made decisions to work harder and earn more money than I will ever make. My point is that the fun is in making our own decisions about what we want out of life and our careers.
"Lifestyle business" is really an HN derogatory term for what most people would just call "financially successful business" ... that may not have ever promised to solve world hunger with a crud application.
But the thing is, there's plenty of evidence that if most people ran lifestyle businesses a lot of problems, like world hunger, would be a lot easier to solve.
Here in Indonesia for example 70% of the nation is self-employed and the per capita GDP is <10% what it is in the US. However, the poorest Indonesians in Jakarta generally have more secure access to food and housing than a significant chunk of Americans.
The author is a very good writer, but they don't actually say why they dropped out of YC. At best, they say "I'm glad I dropped out, because it wasn't much fun". (Yeah, they say that's the reason, but I believe that's a post-rationalisation).
Apparently, the company was stalling, and there were lots of disputes. It's a startup. I guess the author walked earlier than usual - that's either smart or dumb .... it's hard to know which without knowing more.
But there's not enough meat in the article to have a sane discussion on, other than making wild allegations about the author or YC or starups or Moleskin journals.
While it's mixed in amongst a bunch of other detail, several related reasons are given:
"…an irreconcilable working relationship rooted in fundamental differences in personalities and misaligned expectations of roles and responsibilities…"
"…the startup would never be something I could call my own, not just in stake but in equal say… …in this case the lack [of a sense of ownership] tore [the startup] apart…"
"…it just wasn’t fun anymore…"
More specifics about the irreconcilable clashes over roles and sense of ownership would have been great, but there's enough to see that there were unpleasant disagreements between friends that got worse rather than better over time, and it made more sense for the author to leave than others. Happens all the time among people with strong opinions and unclear areas-of-mutual-deference...
Did you leave the startup that got into YC or did the whole start up(your cofounder(s)) also leave YC? Your writing hints at the former in which case it sounds like you left a start up that got into YC, not as much YC.
Sorry, to be harsh but I just couldn't figure out why you left whom--YC, your startup, your cofounders? And what's all about this Moleskine? Happy about any clue or tl;dr
It's easy to be snarky, and this story was a little solipsistic and naive, but I think the notebook represents creativity and personal freedom to explore ideas for the author, that's why it is the star. YC felt like it was closing down options, and restricting his ability to think and act independently (hence the lack of ideas in the notebook), leaving was liberating (hence the new notebook, representing a new world of possibility). As a literary device it's not bad, even if you don't agree with the premise or his conclusions.
I found the metaphor to be contrived and pretentious. We all understand the symbolism of a blank sheet of paper -- there's no need to elaborate for an entire paragraph about it.
Yep. Perhaps I should write a long article about my 1 dollar notebook I bought at a subway station. And the 1 dollar pen. It came without a plastic wrapping and serves me well!
Sorry to say this but it sounds like you're not a right fit for startups. Startups aren't for everyone. If you want to be a founder it is absolutely a gut wrenching challenge. You have to put yourself out there and then be torn apart a million different ways. You have to adapt and change, listen to others. Be relentless. Work is a grind, you don't get to work on what's fun. You have to work on what's right. And if you can't get a very deep sense of fulfillment with all that sacrifice, it doesn't mean you're a bad person. It just means you should get a normal job, or be employee 100 at a company, just don't be a founder.
I'm curious about what you think is a way to actually get to work on what's fun. I know fun is a personal definition, but as I'm starting to build a product myself and I do find it fun and I'm doing it because I like it being fun, I hear this warnings and it kind of makes me think.
Of course I'm afraid I will fail, but I also don't think working at an office is fun, unless you get to work on a cool project and there's no politics (yeah right..) or something like that. But then if building a product yourself, on your own terms, with your own hands, etc, is not fun, then what is? And I don'mean to be rhetorical or sarcastic. I'm asking seriously.
With a lot of comments along the same lines as how hard it is because in the end it's business, what does it mean to build a product for fun, but where the business part is either not the most important part, or even present at all?
Would that be like building a product and giving it away, so it's actually only for fun?
I would think the most fun thing to do would be to join a startup that's doing something that gets you excited, that already has an awesome team, that's already validated the product and the market. At that point it's still a lot of work but at least you know what you're getting into, there's less banging your head against the wall, and you're just helping to make the rocket ship go.
I read that he's ok with doing all those you mentioned but had problem with adequate compensation with enough ownership in the startup. It's one thing to drink the Koolaid to toil away on someone else's idea and product direction with little or no pay nor sufficient equity. It's another thing to have the wisdom to walk away and pursue your own thing, even if that comes with all the problems of a startup.
I guess I don't know what you mean. They were certainly out of the "we don't know if this experiment is going to work or not" stage, and it was clear that the experiment was working. The number of startups that were being funded was less, but the number of startups in general was less too.
That seems like a really odd point to challenge, especially because he set the bar as "not out on the street with glazed-over eyes wondering what could've been." I mean, I kind of regret passing on a Google job in ~2001 to continue with an ultimately-doomed startup. I also regret not spending $10k on AAPL stock back then. I'm still quite happy with my life to date.
If you could get into YC in 2008, you could almost certainly get one of any number of great jobs in the Bay Area, and could easily found a startup again (even with YC; depending on how exactly you left, it might be a positive).
Sure, I don't question the fact that you could make a series of horrible decisions, regret them and then still later on in life be quite happy, despite those earlier failures. That doesn't make the original decision to drop out of YC a good idea. I would think, I might be wrong, you should just make it work and not drop out. You should do whatever it takes to make it work.
And I mean... to paint a little sunshine here, there are also probably plenty of times where we all have made the right decision and it had the best possible outcome in the scenario.
Well, the circumstances are very specific, but - I had a flame out with a cofounder and decided that he was not someone with whom it would be worthwhile to continue the startup. The idea was primarily his, and it was going to be his vision that drove the startup. After the flameout, he's had other startups and jobs that were very much in line with the vision of our original startup. Those startups and jobs failed to demonstrate the correctness of his vision, so I think I did the right thing. It's the equivalent of making a decision to not buy Zynga stock back in the day.
I read it twice, but I still didn't catch a motive beyond "it wasn't fun." I'm thinking he couldn't stomach the process of building a company: the day in, day out of keeping a fledgling venture alive.
On the bright side, he may have saved his former company's life by parting ways with it when he did. Early stage ventures past the incubator/accelerator stage don't seem to weather cofounder disputes without taking significant damage.
So, it was an individual who dropped out of a YC team? Or was it an entire YC team which dropped out? The former is common (although often pushed...); the latter only heard of once personally, except for the one famous "YC retraction (storenvy)". (someone in YC S11 had an idea for a payment system, got in, realized it wasn't viable, so dropped out before the beginning of the program; honestly probably should have stayed in and explored things in Bitcoin, etc., but that's with the luxury of hindsight).
I don't think founding a startup is ever "easy", but it's incredibly fun for a lot of people.
The motive that came through to me was a sense of a loss of voice, i.e. he didn't feel like he had an equal say now that they had accepted money from investors. I.e. unrealistic expectations.
I don't really understand that. Investors gave you money because they believed in the vision you conveyed (or whatever); aside from some very minimal minority-shareholder protections, and protecting your reputation, investors in early stage companies have very little power over you.
The strongest pressure is probably from cofounders, or from employees/customers (once you have those; you can also fire either), or from yourself.
> Investors gave you money because they believed in the vision you conveyed (or whatever);
But it isn't just that. They are locked into an exit strategy and they have to protect that interest. This is even true of the investors with the most honesty and integrity.
In other words, one would hope that an investor would not micromanage, but the investor is ultimately in it to make money and has a few small acceptable options to do that, so they are going to protect that interest. Money == power.
Seed stage investors have essentially no power. They have convertible notes (i.e. are debtholders) -- this gives them about as much power over you as your credit card company, as long as you stay current on the payments (which are usually deferred in the contract); YC is common-holder (and has 2-10%).
You can literally ignore the investors for at least the duration of the note (and probably longer) with no real repercussions. If you sell the company, they'll be able to get in line for money (and generally get paid first), but until Series A, investors have essentially no control to do anything.
In practice, being a dick to your investors (intentionally or unintentionally) is a bad idea (sorry! was busy!), as they usually will help you a lot more if they know how they can help you, but otherwise, it's pretty much at the bottom of concerns.
> Maybe in the wake of a failed startup I deluded myself into thinking great teams are predicated on great friendships, a truism that no longer holds absolute truth.
> It was also the acceptance that the startup would never be something I could call my own, not just in stake but in equal say, that cemented my decision to walk away.
> and when you’re grinding away on an early stage venture with no pay, the enjoyment you derive from working with your partners is all you have.
I feel a certain amount of empathy for the author, mostly due to having been adrift through some lengthy segments of my own life. I will only say that spending much time navel-gazing is a largely futile exercise, particularly when the fruits of that labor are so decidely ambiguous and unfocused. Put some distance, in the metaphysical sense, between yourself and these events.
The thing about YC, is that it is the 'Steve Jobs way', the way of brilliant showmanship. But also the way of blatant lies and distortions fields. It is not the 'Wozniak Way'.
The "Wozniak Way" was to do something very smart and ahead of its time, and let someone else do the marketing that was crucial to its success. The "Wozniak Way" may power some great open source projects, but successful great startups.
I left this (very small point) on Jonathan's blog but think it worth noting here too:
Taking the new Moleskine from the shelf and removing it from its plastic wrap, I turned to the first blank page and picked up my pen.
Good luck on the next steps. One small suggestion, however: consider a Rhodia Webnotebook next time (I wrote about it here: http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/product-review-rhod...). It's more durable than Moleskines and the paper is consistently better. I use a pocket-size notebook but there are A4 versions too.
I sometimes wonder if people like this wake up one day and realize they tossed one of the most important opportunities of their lives because they are stubborn. Probably not.
Irrelevant to the article, every business dreams of the brand loyalty that Moleskine enjoys. Look how often the article uses the brand name for a largely commodity product.
I just want to say you're not alone in being jaded and disillusioned about "Silicon Valley at large". There are a lot of things about it that are fucked up and you should absolutely blaze your own trail or look elsewhere if it doesn't sit right with you. There are a lot of people in tech who deliberately steer clear and they're not hanging out on HN either. For some reason I'm still stuck on this site though.
I'm not sure this says why you dropped out. Is your primary reason because it wasn't 'fun'? I'm not sure startups are supposed to be 'fun'. They are incredibly hard ventures to solve problems where others have failed.
If you are literally having zero fun doing something for a sustained period of time you should probably stop doing that. Startups are hard work but there should be small victories along the way that should be fun. There should be fun in the experience of creating something. There should be fun in sharing what you've built with people. If you're not getting any of that and the environment is completely toxic something is probably wrong.
Maybe in the wake of a failed startup I deluded myself into thinking great teams are predicated on great friendships, a truism that no longer holds absolute truth.
Perhaps there's a misunderstanding of what a friendship is in a business context. The cofounders have to have been friends for quite awhile, otherwise the stress will tear them apart. But they probably don't have to be dear friends, or the kind of friend you hug. It's just business.
to those like me who held the institution on a pedestal
This seems the central issue. YC is ultimately about business. It's awesome, it's changed the world and my life, but having expectations that it's going to be fun and that you're there with dear friends seems off the mark. But I've never done YC, so this is just speculation on my part.
Airbnb provides a lot of help for people without a lot of money. I would've been in a bad position if not for Airbnb.
Dropbox has made my life a lot less stressful.
HN gives us all so many opportunities. For example, the monthly "who is hiring?" threads. If anyone is suddenly stricken with a run of bad luck, then they can make a post about it and the community will come together to at least offer them work. People here like talent, and can find ways to use it. Most other places aren't like that. And imagine a world with only Reddit.
Also, imagine a world with no HN and no Reddit.
YC has made seed funding more accessible, and given founders more power. The VC's had the upper hand before YC. Now the VCs seem to be closer to servants than masters. If I decide to do a startup, that will impact me.
Probably some other things I haven't thought of off hand.
Nothing important in life is easy. That being said, this is also figure of speech. I don't think it's overly enlightening to be literal in reading this. Things don't become fun when they are or become chores; like dirty laundry. {etc}. But who knows.
I wish the author would have talked specifically about the clash with his partner(s), that would have been actually insightful/interesting. But maybe privacy concerns prevent that which is understandable.
I've actually been in a similar position with an incubator startup-thing where my cofounders couldn't carry on working on what we (perhaps mostly I) initially set out to do. Working on anything else certainly feels like hot pants to me. But alas, I'm taking the other route and seeing what happens when I swallow my pride and decide to try learning about something that I think is otherwise bullshit. Just this one time though... can't let the rest of the world tell you to work on shit you don't want to work on forever ;)
Anyone else relate to this for an incubator-type thing? How did staying a path you didn't initially like vs. quitting work out for y'all?
If you want to play the game, you better be mentally prepared for dealing with a lot of shit. Egos are going to clash. Friendships are going to be strained. Stress is going to occur. To use one of my favorite quotes my dad always said to me, "that is life in the big city". Startups are not romantic -- they are a slog.
But... if you are building something you want to build, it can be worth it. Just don't expect it to be easy.