Ask HN: Do YC Startups Lack Spine?
By that I mean the kind of business instincts that are needed to really make a killing in the marketplace.
There seems to be an abundance of admirable nobility in the aims of YCers but not a lot of ruthlessness.
Maybe this is a function of the relative youth and inexperience of most of the groups that apply.
Would YC be more profitable if they were more open to older entrepreneurs that are ready to rumble?
65 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 159 ms ] threadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_get_ready_to_rumble!
To me it just doesn't look like they have the resources to devote to that. They can't stop a competitor using litigation. They don't have a group of lobbyists or senators in their pockets. They have to compete naturally, by building a better product.
So to repeat the question, what exactly do you think a startup should do, to qualify as a "ready to rumble" startup.
Ruthless ... can anyone name a well known inventor who started off ruthless? Tough for me to even write that word as I want to create good in the world and profit from it. Being ruthless... blech!
perhaps you were hallucinating this event
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=328235
And for the record, I agree. By and large, YC startups do lack spines.
Sounds like someone needs a spine ;)
On that note, though, I apologize for accusing you of something you did not do.
What is truly wrong of the OP is the age factor. Zuckerburg and Gates have both been accused of being ruthless thieves at an early age.
i get the feeling that "lack of spine" in the OP is implying that the focus isn't on the bottom dollar or self promotion, is all. focus on the product doesn't garner the direct results like the other two will.
Being YC-funded is a boost, but without marketing and efficiency, it's not enough. There have been numerous YC-funded startups that ran out of money.
I think this depends entirely on what industry sector a startup is targeting. For example, a startup in the drug dealing, extortion, pimping or organised crime sectors should probably be very ruthless and very "ready to rumble".
But for a website -- the sort of business most HN readers are more likely to be in -- ruthlessness is much less likely to be effective. The thing you're most likely to achieve with it is getting people to think you're an arsehole.
Got any hard data to support your claims?
I'm not sure where your hostility is coming from -- I think that link sufficiently answers the question asked. I didn't make any comment about one philosophy of business over any other.
Did the market cap of Microsoft suddenly drop while I wasn't looking or something?
If you're more specific and backup your claims with data (or even concrete examples) I think you'll get better answers.
Let's start by clarifying your question. Did Larry & Sergey, when they started, have these business instincts about making a killing in the marketplace that you're referring to? Because if they did they seem to have been well hidden. And if they didn't, these qualities don't seem to be worth much.
Also, can you tell me more about the youth and inexperience of the people who apply to YC? No one, as far as we know, sees the applications except us.
Your last question I can at least answer with certainty: no. It takes 4-5 years for a startup to achieve liquidity. No YC-funded startup is that old; the median is only about 18 months old. Our profitability now is therefore noise, which means no change in the applicants would have affected it significantly.
As for your point about Google, some ideas are so powerful that they fall outside the conventional expectations of business practice. The fact that Google's founders have, until lately anyway, been unassertive in the manner of Microsoft, does not indicate that Bill Gates' approach "is not worth much". Absent some ground-shaking idea like Google's, I would argue the assertive approach of Microsoft is the norm for a successful company and a key ingredient missing in the YC environment.
Or maybe you could use some mid sized companies as examples as Google and Microsoft are both anomalies.
They started off trying to build something people want (Basic for the Altair) just like any YC company. I wouldn't say that most YC startups display any less ambition than building a Basic interpreter.
Gates was hungry for that deal and beat Kildall to the punch, doing what he needed to, bending the rules/law to get his foot in the door at IBM.
The essay by pg about "doing good" mentioned by someone in this thread might ring true when the valves are open and VC funding is flowing freely but in the new financial reality that we are in, I am arguing that it is the companies that have this kind of ruthlessness that will be the ones who make it, not the ones who want to "do good". Microsoft is not an outlier in this practice. It is self-evident that this is the American way of business.
http://books.google.com/books?id=iPWjNoSS9vUC&pg=PA120&#...
I still go back to my original comment, which is that when you boil this whole question down, it makes no sense at all.
You are asking me for "specific examples of a YC startup not being ruthless". But I am asking for the inverse - examples of aggressiveness. I haven't seen any at YC. Have you? Perhaps you don't believe it's necessary or important but that was the premise of my original question. I insist that this is not a troll but a sincere question and an important one in the current economic environment, even more especially for companies not privileged by YC funding.
The YC founders I've met in person have been plenty assertive, and when it comes to business, some are pretty downright ruthless. They are nice guys outside of business (which is probably why you don't see them as ruthless or assertive), but they have just as much killer instinct as any other entrepreneur I've met, and more than some. PG seems to select for that - perhaps that's why I was rejected 4 times. ;-)
When I saw the title, my first thought was "Umm, wow. People really think that?"
I mean, they haven't thrown any bricks through their competitors' windshields, but they haven't passed up any chances to make their competitors look half-baked.
What companies are you comparing YC companies to? Other successful companies or a random sample of other startups that are non-YC? Particularly with the examples of Microsoft and Google, your analysis is historical. In their pre-public-company days you may have been lured into making the same type of statement in regards to them because any business they were involved in at the time was probably minimally visible from the outside just as it is with many YC companies now. There is a lot going on behind the scenes that you probably don't know about and thus cannot consider. That is the nature of private companies.
If anything, I suspect older entrepreneurs aren't as open to YC than the other way around. In my own case, if I wanted $20K in expenses for a startup, I'd login to e*trade and transfer it, or I'd write a check for it. Doesn't seem worth giving up 6% for the cash, though if I were intent on striking out on my own, I'd almost certainly talk to YC, to see if a "3% for $1 and advice/contacts" deal could be worked out.