This was my first startup idea, and the first one we executed on: an open-source CI that runs on your machine exactly like it does in the cloud and doesn’t use YAML as the main configuration format.
Others have tried the same, including Cicada, which was built by the same folks as Fig.
Here are the failure modes for this idea:
- CI succeeds most of the time. It’s only in the minority of cases that running CI locally is useful, as you don’t need to debug that often.
- The only case where CI fails more often is when building pipelines. If you’re building pipelines then GitHub actions already has bazillions of actions and recipes available. Their “whole product” is a huge advantage (shout-out to readers of Crossing the Chasm).
- The friction to adopt GHA is much smaller as it’s one click away on GitHub and all your other stuff is already there.
- Making an MVP of CI is really difficult because it requires lots of features. You can’t even start if you don’t have things like permissions, outputs for different workflows, and a significant amount of infra for orchestration.
- Even when you have an MVP the switching costs of CI are ridiculously high, and it’s a critical piece of infrastructure, so it’s difficult to get people to move over if you’re only offering marginal gains.
- GitHub is owned by Microsoft, which owns Azure. Their compute will be way cheaper 99% of the time. Your product advantage must be significant enough to justify higher costs. In any case, their margin will be ridiculously higher.
It’s funny how many people get to the same conclusion, yet this is a really difficult problem to solve.
TL;DR: the author idea is great and many people thought about it before. Executing such an idea is extremely difficult though.
> GitHub is owned by Microsoft, which owns Azure. Their compute will be way cheaper 99% of the time.
I hope that regulators in Europe will start to notice and respond to these monopolistic practices of IaaS players who unfairly compete on the managed services market by providing services below cost. Previously, such actions were taken against e.g. Microsoft to ensure that Windows licenses are offered on equal terms to all cloud providers (without preferences for Azure).
> - GitHub is owned by Microsoft, which owns Azure. Their compute will be way cheaper 99% of the time. Your product advantage must be significant enough to justify higher costs.
This definitely isn't true. GitHub Actions are extremely expensive for compute.
Quick testimonial from a YC startup that had Peter's assistance for us to go to the batch earlier this year: Peter is great. He gave us great advice and helped us out with how to fill out an urgent application for a visa for my co-founder. Would highly recommend him.
Totally agree with the sentiment. Also, "useless" is a totally subjective label.
I think it's worth quoting PG on this one:
> Just as trying to think up startup ideas tends to produce bad ones, working on things that could be dismissed as "toys" often produces good ones. When something is described as a toy, that means it has everything an idea needs except being important. It's cool; users love it; it just doesn't matter. But if you're living in the future and you build something cool that users love, it may matter more than outsiders think.
Yeah, the photos on the homepage just show a very fit, normal guy and it's true that nearly anyone can look like that. Compare it to Arnold Schwarzenegger (who later admitted to using steroids) and it's nuts.
It’s pretty much an open secret that every Hollywood actor that needs to be muscular for a role uses some kind of anabolic androgen. You see stories like “he put on 30 pounds of muscle for this role in six months” and it’s obvious what’s going on. Also the signature overdeveloped upper traps and that trenbalone “dryness.”
All that being said I’m still curious about the activity efficacy of the dynamic tension method. My understanding is that you basically flex to make your opposing muscle groups work against each other as a training stimulus.
Dynamic tension is almost like isometrics, except with an isometric hold you don't move the limbs and thus only hit the muscle at one angle. This is OK because muscles get stronger such that they have more strength 30 degrees each way from where you place them under stress.
The simplest way to demonstrate DT for yourself is to straighten your arms, cup your fingers together and pull the arms/shoulders outwards; then, move your straightened arms in an arc from waist to above your head. You should feel it in your shoulders and back.
I never implied they were not friendly. All the YC folks seem very nice. I’m sure they want you to succeed, but they succeed more if you take a strategy that is against your self-interest.
This is a great post. I’d just add that I assume VCs are successful now because they’ve been successful in the past.
I don’t have data on this, but I’d guess the top tier VCs attract and have deal access to top tier startups, which are more likely to perform well. Then, when those perform well, the next top tier startups will come to them again.
Perhaps someone else would be able to confirm my assumption on this positive reinforcement loop.
Also, these days you can get a reasonably good comp and still be at a startup. Sure, it will not be as much as FAANG, but it’s still good, and you get to work on an environment that’s more stimulating and allows you to try things out.
> Also, these days you can get a reasonably good comp and still be at a startup
Yes. Startups these days, at least as an engineer, are a great vehicle for barbell investing. The salary caps your downside (make sure it’s enough to support savings) and the equity offers balls-to-the-wall exposure to potential upside.
Non-startup corporate (BigTech is a part of this) instead offers the vibe of “Thank you for creating the next billion dollar product, here is a 20k bonus and a pizza party”
Sure but BigTech offers a significant boost in comp over start-ups so you are really trading away some of the upside for stability. I like being able to do things like pay a mortgage in a HCOL area out of base salary without dependency on stock. Some start-ups are starting to get more reasonable in comp so it's no longer a 50% pay cut (which it often used to be) but they are still often only offering about 70% of BigTech or less.
> offers a significant boost in comp over start-ups
Yes and a lot of those total comp numbers are hiding pretty reasonable base salaries behind a huge “BigTech stocks soaring hiigh”. It is still pretty rare for an Individual Contributor to make more than $250k base. Even in BigTech.
> pay a mortgage in a HCOL area out of base salary without dependency on stock
This is completely doable in startups these days. Perhaps our definition of “startup” is different? I’m using it to mean any company with VC funding that hasn’t IPO’d or been acquired by a post-IPO company.
If you have more than 200 employees you better not be telling me "we're a startup" as an excuse for having poor processes for basic things like providing competitive comp, hiring, performance reviews, and capacity planning. If you have under 50 employees then it really is true that often there are not enough pieces on the chessboard to get things done like a big boy company. I'm much more willing to be accommodating and pitch in as an employee in those circumstances.
If you have over 1000 employees, you haven't IPO'd, and you keep telling your employees to work 60 hours a week because "we're a startup" then you're some combination of delusional and exploitative.
Two things have made startups significantly less attractive than they were in the 90s:
1. A substantial fraction of successful exits are now acquisitions. If you have ever been a part of an acquisition you know that unless the acquired company is a unicorn it is unlikely that you will see anything unless you are a key member of personnel. I've seen this happen to friends at >100 companies.
2. Long timelines to public complicate things. Options, even on a 10 year timeline, may expire before you can reasonably exercise them. The lack of cash can hinder life plans (children, house) and incentivise you to bet big. Each round requires the org to once again execute. If I build play a key role in making a business worth 100 million, and we raise at a value of 2 billion and fail to get there, my stock might now be worth very little.
The E(V) at larger companies is awesome by comparison.
For point #1, it's the exit price that matters. Whether the exit takes the form of an acquisition or an IPO, is incidental. I've done both multiple times. Acquisitions tend to be faster, cleaner, and easier exits. IPOs are tough, and once public, you're often locked up.
>The E(V) at larger companies is awesome by comparison.
It's not just comp that's variable, but experience too. Fast-growing startups offer career opportunities that you'd rarely see at FANG. Even if your goal is to simply minimize risk and maximize upside, the optimal path is probably something like bouncing back and forth between FANG for the cash comp and fast-growing startups for the career acceleration.
Not to mention the type of people who thrive at early stage startups typically can't stand FANG environments, and vice versa.
It's not even about performance. This is based purely on anecdote but IME most of the startup acquisitions of the last decade of zero interest rates have been acquihires. Top VC naturally make M&A contacts at companies acquiring startups which begets more M&A deal flow when those acquirers need more warm bodies, which leads to more press and positive feedback with market of entrepreneurs looking for funding. They get the best pick of the litter and when the company is facing the possibility of a down round or failure, they start shopping them around with their contacts.
It doesn't make for the flashy 100x unicorn returns but it's been a consistent source of 5-10x returns especially for seed and Series A/B investments where the VCs are likely to get liquidation preference up to 100% of the acquisition.
