There's a subtle, rather meta feeling I can't shake when I read "cautionary" blog posts like these. It's the feeling that maybe the author isn't writing it for anyone else's benefit as much as their own. Like the author writes to reinforce that, unlike said "friend" who's making all these cautionary mistakes, they themselves are in it for all the right reasons.
Every time the author makes a, "he" statement, you can just perceive a subtle, "but not me." The faintest signal for both the reader, and for himself. Here's what I read:
- "I let a long sigh." (Because I know better).
- "My friend wasn’t someone I’d call 'entrepreneurial'" (...but I am).
- "He wasn’t doing it because he enjoyed the process of starting and growing a company." (But I am).
- "But building a company requires a lot more than writing code." (All things I'm far more capable of).
- "He’s lived in Silicon Valley long enough, and that’s what people around him are doing." (Me? I'm an island).
Who is the author to make this judgement? Why do you need to fit some mold in order to participate in the exclusive club, without criticism from the author? And who gets to determine what that mold is?
Anyone who has been through an incubator has probably heard this line:
"Most of your companies will fail. And now that I've said that, you're all feeling sorry for everyone else in the room."
Honestly, I encourage my friends to take risks and try new things, even if I have inner doubts about their ability to pull it off. I do so because I think that trying something really, really hard improves you skill set -- even if you end up failing.
If a friend said, "I'm going to try and get into the Olympics!" would you tell them all the ways they're likely to fail? Or would you encourage them to try and achieve a dream? The key is not understating the risks; be both encouraging and honest.
I have never heard the line "most of your companies will fail" from anyone I know of in Y Combinator. Mostly because "fail" isn't really well defined -- even a mediocre startup is usually more interesting than a boring job. Even founding the next Instagram might be a failure for someone who really cares about medicine or space.
I agree with you that it's not for anyone, other than the man in the arena, to determine whether someone belongs in a startup or not. At the same time, I strongly agree with the observations made by OP. The social pressure is strong in the valley: all people talk about are startups. Its perceived to be easy to work for a year or two with a couple smart friends and get bought by Facebook or Google. Zuck bragged at SUS two years ago that (a) every CEO they'd acquired was still working at Facebook and (b) they'd shut down every product they'd acquired. Many people aren't "in it" to build great companies. That's just how Silicon Valley works. On the other hand, many of the best companies are highly product focused and driven by a desire to do something more. Most people on both ends of the spectrum will fail. Perhaps this is correlated to the underlying motivations, but I don't think anyone has data on that (probably because it's ill-defined). It may be wrong to moralize about this dichotomy, but it's certainly there.
Of course it's there. We're human - we're all subject to circumstance and surroundings. We can't say with certainty that we would be doing tech startups if we were born in another time or another place (ie your lack of data - I agree). So where do you draw the line?
The issue I take with this type of writing is that, at best, it's pointless. And at its worst, it's desctuctive.
Pointless - It's not fact based. It presents no new, compelling ideas. It's not helpful for practical purposes, or optimistic for inspirational ones. What's the point? Why was it written? (For the authors sake, I think.)
Destructive - It draws lines and separates classes, the higher of which the author subtly places himself in while condescending the hopeless "friend". Where would we be on our own startup journeys if our "friends" were so (not) supportive?
And this, by the way, is where someone gets to call me and my comments out for being super hypocritical ;) </irony>
I completely agree. It feels like intellectualization - a subconscious defence of personal choices made out to look like fact. I see this in everyday life all the time, and I daresay the root of it is an irrational subconscious fear that the person being criticized (here, the friend) may succeed, and what that potential success implies about the speaker.
In this case, if the friend follows their "me too" path and "succeeds", the author's beliefs about the "right" path would be shown to be unfounded. Of course at this point the author has invested, as stated in the post, five years of time and energy on this path and is unsurprisingly going to be reluctant to admit there may have been another path that could have taken him to the same destination with a lower time and energy investment. Instead, the author intellectualizes and rationalizes his choices to prevent acknowledging the uncomfortable truth.
There's a mentally healthier way of dealing with this: acknowledge there are multiple paths, and acknowledge that destinations are multi-variate. For example, what does the friend want as a destination, just money? Maybe the author wants something more - experience, satisfaction of starting their own business, etc. It's dysfunctional to suggest the friend should choose the same destination as the author; once this is accepted, you can happily get on with your choice of path and not worry that others have made different choices. Occasionally, of course, you will find somebody has arrived at the same destination you desire with less time and energy -- at that point, set aside your ego and learn from them!
The OP says: That’s not what I meant. I know YC is a great place. But why do YOU want to get in?
I don't think he was being as critical of the path chosen but more so of why the friend decided to start the journey to begin with. I might be misinterpreting things though.
"Listen. It’s never been easier to start a company. And right now, money is thrown left and right. In the past year alone, six of my colleagues left my company to start their own startups. I figured if they can do it, I can too."
OP didn't like that answer and skipped past it, and I'm playing psychoanalyst by wondering why.
That answer was a "me too" answer isn't it (not arguing the merits of a response regardless of whether it is or isn't). I think the author (I'm guessing) was hoping for a deeper answer than "I'm doing this because everyone else is and it appears easy" rather than simply skipping over it.
1. I can certainly see how it can be interpreted in the context you've pointed out but that's not how I would have interpreted it.
2. I disagree that it presents no new compelling idea. What is not new to you and me maybe new to someone else. Helpful or not is very much in the eye of the reader and what they end up doing with that information and how they interpret and manage it. There are merits to the post whether or not you agree with them or whether you think there are any to begin with.
3. While I totally agree that at the end of the day, the decision to do something resides with the decision maker, I also acknowledge that what the author points out as "me too" syndrome do exist to an extent and in many ways that can in fact be harmful as well.
4. I do agree its never good to be condescending but I don't believe that was the intention here. You asked where would we on our own startup journey if our friends were not so supportive. While I do agree as a whole, I also believe that a great friend doesn't always blindly support their friend. Sometimes being a friend simply means having the courage to point out where your concerns are and why you are concerned. In the end, the support is to allow your friend to take that information and go about making the choices he or she needs to make. While the author didn't dive into this (what he did or didn't discuss with his friend beyond what was posted), I have a hard time believing they made this post with a condescending tone over trying to help others (the readers) see what may be obvious to you and me but may not be to many.
Exactly. Also, the idea that you have to have higher ideals to become an entrepreneur is laughable at best. It's about business, not self realization. If anything, this piece made me sympathize with the friend who approaches YC with irreverence and gusto instead of fear and angst of not doing a startup for the "right" reasons.
I didn't think that when I read it but I can see where one could think that. I do think he's got a point about the "me, too" start up bandwagon that appears to be growing. I would not try to discourage anyone from giving it a go as long as they are being smart about it. I would if/when the time was right.
"I would not try to discourage anyone from giving it a go"
That's the ticket right there.
When friends and friends-of-friends have expressed a curiosity into startups, I treat them with the same respect I would hope for. Very clear - forceful even - about the risks and challenges of entrepreneurship, and very, very critical about ideas (but always with the "...but who am I?" disclaimer). But overall, I try and default to being supportive and encouraging.
It's not charity either. There are absolutely selfish benefits behind being supportive. Like Guy Kawasaki or Keith Ferrazzi would point out - the more helpful you are, the more valuable your network. It's impossible to quantify, but being supportive early on is just the best thing for everyone involved.
The main over-arching point is perfectly palatable, but the probing element ("That’s not what I meant. I know YC is a great place. But why do YOU want to get in?") in the post comes off as passive-agressive.
I don't know if the author was trying to express this particular sentiment, but I am concerned by a general theme that I have noticed in articles I have been reading on HN lately.
1. We are in a bubble, because all these 'useless' startups are getting funding when they should not be (debatable on many levels).
2. Too many startups are focusing on areas that are over like 'Social'.
3. Some people just aren't good enough or cut out for this, so they should avoid it, and let the ones with a specific set of 'opinions' create startups.
My advise to anyone also sensing this theme and turning away from creating a startup is this:
Do it for whatever reason you want!
If you want to make a great product, and love hacking, awesome! Go for it!
If you want to get rich and jump in, awesome! Go for it!
There are no guarantees in life about whether anyone will succeed, but there is also not infinite time to wonder what might have been. Even if 90% of these ventures fail, there will still be more great products and opportunities for everyone. Because that crazy 10% wasn't deterred by someone else telling them what should and shouldn't be. Cautionary tales help to educate, but don't be discouraged by anyone if you really want to do it.
> Too many startups are focusing on areas that are over like 'Social'.
See, I like to think of a startup as any other brick and mortar business. If it manages to leap into a world-wide success, nothing wrong with that - but don't expect it. Have a game plan that focuses on the reality around you. A startup isn't always a Facebook or Instagram (although they were too, at a point). It's okay to build an online business and just make $60-120 k/year - you know, like any other B&M business owner. To me a "startup" is simply described as a scaleable model that employs technology intelligently with modern-day principals of delegation, pivoting & management.
I always get confused about exit strategy. To some it means here's what happens when/if I bail.... To others it seems to mean this is where I'll be a billionaire and.... Both are bunk to someone who is passionately building a product or service that they love.
>See, I like to think of a startup as any other brick and mortar business. If it manages to leap into a world-wide success, nothing wrong with that - but don't expect it. Have a game plan that focuses on the reality around you. A startup isn't always a Facebook or Instagram (although they were too, at a point). It's okay to build an online business and just make $60-120 k/year - you know, like any other B&M business owner. To me a "startup" is simply described as a scaleable model that employs technology intelligently with modern-day principals of delegation, pivoting & management.
The problem is that a lot of startups don't seem to have any plan in place to actually get to the point where they're actually making money on their own. The B&M store comparison is pretty apt here. You don't start a corner convenience store in the hopes that 7-Eleven will come up and buy you. You start the store because there isn't a store there, in the hope that enough people will come and buy stuff that you can make a profit.
That's where a lot of the worry is, I think. Especially because we're seeing a huge amount of VC funding going towards startups that are almost purely pinned on getting snapped up by a bigger company. Instagram is a great example of this. They have a product that has the majority of the current midshare in it's space, has millions of users, is a very cool application on both a technical usability level... and approximately $0 in incoming revenue. And no plan to make money besides "Maybe get advertisers on the platform at some point in the future"(http://behindcompanies.com/2012/04/instagrams-business-model... )[1]. From an investment perspective, it was a very bad investment... until they sold out to Facebook, at which point it was a GREAT one.
I think that's the concern that TFA has. A lot of startups, by and large, have turned into R&D for large corporations rather than traditional entrepreneurial businesses. The concern isn't that people are creating a product that's sold. They're creating a product without any concern about how to make money with it, and are hoping that someone with deep pockets will snap them up. There's a time and place for both, but the second shouldn't be getting nearly as much money as the first.
[1]To be fair, I think that with 30 million users, Instagram would have a viable business model based on advertising, and certainly could have made a profit. The problem, though, is that I don't think that model would return anywhere near the amount that the $500MM valuation indicated. Certainly, it would be in the low tens of millions of dollars, but not in the hundreds.
I like the view point. Another way of looking at this is what Startups were always good at. They were always good at "Disruptive Innovation". The regular "Continuos Innovations" is better done by big companies. Most startups today dont start with the idea of creating a business but to disruptively solve a problem. If the goal of the business is to cause Disruptive Innovation then it can be done better without looking at the money on day to day basis. Big Companies being able to acquire these Innovative companies works well for all parties involved.
This is absolutely true. People are prone to think that if you start a company and it is "for the wrong reasons," three years later you will be bankrupt and want to kill yourself.
Likely, if you start a company for the wrong reasons, you will find out very quickly and will quit within a couple months. You will pursue more standard forms of employment and be FAR happier about it.
I say, if you want to start a company for whatever reason... do it!
Regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of this article, the scansion of his/her opening poetry bothers me.
In the spirit of hacking, I've tried to improve it (and please help me if I've done this wrong or poorly!):
Twas the Y-Comb deadline eve, when all through the valley
All the hackers were stirring (it's a big night for Cali!).
Scores of applications were POST'ed with care
In hopes they'd be found by Paul Graham to be fair.
And many a partner slumbered softly in bed,
while visions of A-rounds flooded their SO's heads.
Quite out of the blue my iPhone did ring:
an old friend to a bar for a convo I'd bring!
- Are you kidding? It’s an awesome opportunity: you get to mingle with smart people, work on something exciting, get funding and mentorship, investors will chase you to give you money, and you’re much more likely get acquired in the future.
- That’s not what I meant. I know YC is a great place. But why do YOU want to get in?"
"why do YOU want to get in?" The question was answered.
Definitely. Mingling with smart people, working on something exciting, and getting mentorship are often ends in themselves and don't need any further justification.
Aside from all of the other possibly insulting remarks from the post, this particular one caught my eye:
"And a few girlfriends slept alone in their beds
While visions of exits danced in their boyfriends’ heads"
I'm male, but let me tell you that the above statement infuriates me as it perpetuates the stereotype that women are not entrepreneurs. I'm sure I'm not the only one who believes that my better half would be wildly more successful than I would be if she had an inkling to do a startup.
> I'm male, but let me tell you that the above statement infuriates me as it perpetuates the stereotype that women are not entrepreneurs. I'm sure I'm not the only one who believes that my better half would be wildly more successful than I would be if she had an inkling to do a startup.
There is no irony because as I stated, "I'm sure I'm not the only one." This sentence conveys that in "some" not "all" cases women make better entrepreneurs.
Irony would only exist if I made a sweeping comment about all women being better as entrepreneurs, which I assure you, I did not make.
Well I don't want to play professor here, but I don't think you understand the meaning of irony. The fact that you find fault with the implication that women aren't just as likely as men to pursue startups but then say that your girlfriend would do much better than yourself at them if "only she had the inkling to do one" is ironic.
You see, you resent the implication that women don't do startups. Your girlfriend doesn't do startups and doesn't have the inclination to do them. You are using her as an example (albeit a poor one) of why that implication is false.
The amount of assumptions you stuffed into the reply is simply mind boggling.
I'll start by dispelling a simple one:
Better half doesn't necessarily equate to girlfriend.
Furthermore, the condescending tone and verbiage used in the reply is nothing more than inflammatory. I would disservice myself to continue responding past this point.
>Better half doesn't necessarily equate to girlfriend.
The original post was talking about girlfriends, so contextually it sounded like you meant girlfriend by "better half". You're a terrible spokesman for ending sexism as you seem to replace one form of ignorance for another combined with hypersensitivity (having said that, yes the original "joke" was a lame one).
I'm not bothered by much as a female in tech (and believe me, I hear a lot of ignorant, sexist remarks), but this comment really rubbed me the wrong way.
I am almost certain there are more gay male (and thus might have boyfriend) startup founders than female startup founders (who might also have boyfriends), too.
It's probably better to use something generic to represent the general case.
Minor observation - the last line about YCombinator being "the best place to start a company" seemed a little weird. As a percentage, how many of the recent "startup success stories" have been started at YCombinator and how many haven't?
I find nothing wrong with the "Me, Too" Startup Syndrome. I know plenty of friends who went to medical school because their parents were doctors, or it's the "Asian thing" to do, and they turned out to be decent doctors. Same for lawyers, accountants and gardners; a lot of "me too" happening outside of the startup world. Unlike 30 years ago, many more people want to go into technology because it's hip to be in a startup - hell, thanks to popular cinema (The Social Network) and mainstream technology (iOS/Android) geekie hobbies are now cool. People got mocked for playing with their Timex Sinclair in the early '80s, whereas today I have to sign up early in order to reserve my son a spot in the mobile game development bootcamp. Times are a changing, and the OP sounds like the indie college guy who's resentful that his secret band is now being followed by everybody.
Other "me too" activities: marriage, children, golf, smoking, religion, tantric sex... sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. All a part of life.
I've been thinking the same things lately. Referring to what ever coding project happens to be filling your spare time as your "start up" seems to be what all the cool kids are doing these days.
Even if a startup fails helpfully everyone involved learned some lessons. I know people who have been founders or have worked in startups that didn't succeed, in-spite of that have gone on to do a variety of interesting things.
Companies fail for all sorts of reasons that are often well beyond their control. Being part of such a team is hardly the kiss of death provided you can explain what you did and what you learned.
You lose 100% of the games you never play. Go into it with your eyes open that more than likely you won't be the next instagram, but you will develop many skills can be broadly applied outside of starting a company. With the right attitude it doesn't matter if you strike it rich, because frequently good ideas(supersonic air travel, concord ) lose and a lot of seemingly bad ideas have made people wealthy(pet rocks).
Awesomepreneur in me says you should take that inner voice that makes you doubt because of public opinion out back and shoot it. Do what you need, to get the job done in whatever plan and stay focused. Most will fail, some will last but wounded, few will stick around and all of them will blog about it. Just focus on getting the job done, even if it's a local-centric social network for pets with sepia instagram avatars. Well, maybe I went too far, but keep focused on your own work, not others.
Another issue I see is people are not afraid at all due to easy availability of capital. Although, entrepreneur can be considered as fearless (at least when it comes to failure). But he/she always lives in fear. Be it competitors, running out of money, employees quitting, not able to hire, etc. At least, I live in fear all the time.
I definitely agree, it is a lot easier to fill out an application than to rally around an idea and begin creating a great product. I think it's definitely worth doing some self examination before deciding you are ready to do a startup and understanding the reality of your situation.
If funtrepreneurship doesn't work out, there's always the more time-tested consulting version, the funsultant. Or, when all other options fail, the default, funemployment...
I don't see a problem with the name of his blog... putting the fun in entrepreneur. It does appear to be the first post but maybe I'm not familiar with how Tumblr works.
Doesn't "...And a few girlfriends slept alone in their beds, While visions of exits danced in their boyfriends’ heads..." operate on the same presumption that has resulted in a number of others getting their asses handed to them recently?
Well... I said "mate" for a reason. I didn't assume anything. But not everything can be written with those generic s/he or his/her notation. Sometimes... it just looks stupid. Sometimes a gender must be picked... and it will always be wrong to someone. Why does it have to be an issue all the time? Why do we have to assume that every time a person writes anything and they decide that a character is a male then the writer is sexist?
Besides... the poem said "a few girlfriends...". I am quite sure that this is a very accurate statement. Of the "Thousands of applications" that were submitted I imagine that enough of them were from men that a few of them had girlfriends that slept alone that night. Why does it have to be taken to the extreme and interpreted as "all these women sleeping away as all the men (and only the men) go off to start companies and get rich"?
I'm going to assume by your naive indifference you are not female, and quite likely are white, because you exhibit the ignorance of someone who's never suffered any type of indignity worse than the label of "dorky programmer".
I don't suggest you complain to your non-white, non-male friends about that...
If the OP had written the poem as "a few boyfriends slept alone..." nobody would have said a thing. If one is acceptable and the other is not... where lies the sexism now?
And not that it really matters since we aren't supposed to be looking at race/gender but yes... white & male. And just to round out the trifecta... from (what probably would have been considered at that time) a working/middle class family to boot. So maybe the worst indignity I've suffered was that when it came time to go to college there wasn't anybody looking to help me. Thankfully my grades were good enough because they don't give many grants and scholarships to middle class white males. But I'm getting over that the best I can. I don't complain about it every chance I get anymore.
But let's not get trapped by this silly notion that only white people are racist and only males are sexist. I've been labeled all sorts of things by all sorts of people. For instance... someone who doesn't even know me recently called me an indifferent, ignorant white man. I'm still standing.
The implicit assumption that it's the boyfriends that would be doing the startup and the girlfriends that would be sleeping alone in bed - the implication that obviously it would only be that way around.
It said "a few girlfriends" for carp sake. A few. Not all. A. FEW. The poem doesn't even begin to imply that it would only be that way around. The only thing obvious here is that some people are hell bent on finding injustice hiding behind every word. I feel sorry for those people. :(
Oops, you just projected. He said "mate" and "dorky programmers". Both of those stereotypes could mean female programmers as well so you assuming he could only mean males means that part is coming from you.
Every time the author makes a, "he" statement, you can just perceive a subtle, "but not me." The faintest signal for both the reader, and for himself. Here's what I read:
- "I let a long sigh." (Because I know better).
- "My friend wasn’t someone I’d call 'entrepreneurial'" (...but I am).
- "He wasn’t doing it because he enjoyed the process of starting and growing a company." (But I am).
- "But building a company requires a lot more than writing code." (All things I'm far more capable of).
- "He’s lived in Silicon Valley long enough, and that’s what people around him are doing." (Me? I'm an island).
Who is the author to make this judgement? Why do you need to fit some mold in order to participate in the exclusive club, without criticism from the author? And who gets to determine what that mold is?