Hacker News Reader

Comment by avindroth | Hacker News Reader

I like all of these except number 10: avoid distractions.

I can't support the claim myself, but I have seen a startup succeed as a professor's side project with his brother (lasted 10+ years, IPO).

Going all-in on your startup from day 1 might seem efficient, but it may not be most effective.

For instance, if I have an idea for an EduTech startup, I might e-mail some players/professors in the field and chat with them about the idea, and try to see why most startups in the field fail.

You have to wait until they respond, because your entire assumptions might fail! Keeping the youthful spirit is good, but talking to people who dedicate their lives to these fields is often invaluable. Don't build on top of unsteady assumptions.

"Launching fast" might not be the only way to test your assumptions.

View on HN

I don't think he's referring to making the startup your full focus vs side project at the early stage; after all PG et al still advocate burning slow. Sometimes a side project doesn't benefit by having you work on it 4–8x as many hours per week if you have the right prioritization in place in the first place.

I think this is more concerned with things like media coverage, founder interviews, attending/panelling conferences, and things like that.

I like how Sam Altman described it in Focus & Intensity from Startup Playbook [0]:

> Don’t get caught up in early success—you didn’t get off to a promising start by going to lots of networking events and speaking on lots of panels. Startup founders who start to have initial success have a choice of two paths: either they keep doing what they’re doing, or they start spending a lot of time thinking about their “personal brand” and enjoying the status of being a founder.

> It’s hard to turn down the conferences and the press profiles—they feel good, and it’s especially hard to watch other founders in your space get the attention. But this won’t last long. Eventually the press figures out who is actually winning, and if your company is a real success, you’ll have more attention than you’ll ever want. The extreme cases—early-stage founders with their own publicists—that one would think only exist in TV shows actually exist in real life, and they almost always fail.

[0]: http://playbook.samaltman.com

I think you've missed a key distinction: the time before you accept investor money is very different from the time after. Prior to that point, sure, pursue whatever leads seem interesting at whatever level of effort they seem to merit. After that point, though, you need to go all-in.

I went to a class on startups once where the guy there said you should bounce your idea off like "100" people, (basically, to pivot early). Before you go "great guns" on your idea. FWIW, not sure how that ties into "pre investor" vs. post however :)

Yes but there is only so much energy in the brain. A good startup requires extraordinary thought and work. If you are working on other things that are also demanding, i.e. a a job, then you won't have your best energy left-over.

I agree with PG on this one, though it is definitely a luxury to avoid distractions.

If you are listening to your customers, trying to get the product "right", sometimes its hard to know what the distractions are, and what the great idea's are. As CTO I know I find myself constantly try to keep out CEO on track to delivering one product, when he wants to try 3 other variations.

Heh, that sounds backwards (between CEO/CTO).

The early stage CEOs I know, especially non-technical ones, are always pitching multiple variations of their product (and sometimes multiple products) to see what sticks. I think the CTO brings the technical realism of "here's what we can build this week".

>Yes but there is only so much energy in the brain. A good startup requires extraordinary thought and work.

Or that's what the old wives tales say.

which part?

That a "good startup requires extraordinary thought and work".

I know several people who had started and sold companies (admittedly to the tune of a few million dollars, not billions), without devoting "extraordinary thought and work" to them.

For some it was just a side project where university was their main work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com