I Am Sam Altman, President of YC Group. AMA
YC applications for Winter 2017 are due a week from today and I like to answer questions about applying to YC.
I'm also happy to answer questions about anything else!
EDIT: Going to bed; thanks everyone!
I'm also happy to answer questions about anything else!
EDIT: Going to bed; thanks everyone!
It seems very broken that IT specifically should be bound to a physical place. Are there any plans to innovate in this regard or any research YC is doing?
The short version is accumulation of know-how in that geographic region. For years, most of the brilliant minds in the tech domain from all over the world have gone to SV to collaborate together. So even if another country creates a replication of SV in terms of infrastructure (or even gives tax breaks and other incentives), it's hard to recreate the huge pool of bright professionals who have years of know-how to tackle startup related challenges.
My choke point has always been finding another technical-minded parter that gets the industry. Every time I've seen the YC application season roll around, I've thought it'd be a perfect fit for applying to YC, with the connections and clout that come with it. What's stopped me, even at my half-assed pace, was the chance of the huge ego/momentum hit of getting rejected, considering it's still a labor of love (although profitable).
I have a handful of customers that are already paying monthly for "The Vision Lite" at discounted prices: just enough for me to continue development. But larger competitors are sure to move more aggressively into the area over the next year or so, before my current trajectory can deliver on the "this is Star Trek-level shit" experience I've got planned. I'm sure I can grow my customer base at a moderate rate, but I'm not sure I can keep up once the field gets serious against better-funded competitors.
Where do you think the tipping point is between the Basecamp-style "Just get profitable, stay profitable, and move forward" model vs. "Take VC money and turn a two-year schedule into a six months, and get entrenched while you can?" (Fred Brooks notwithstanding)
If you are going to run a big company, far, far worse things will come your way than a YC rejection. Try again. And again. And again.
Giving up too early is one of the biggest causes of failure I know.
In terms of the two models--it really depends on your company and market, and what you want to do.
What's the difference between being persistent and wasting time? I'm curious as to where you draw the line.
If you fail to get a seed-round going after meeting with maybe 1/2 dozen VC's you will be significantly 'more ready' for the next time you meet. Once you've made more progress and reached more milestones, you can probably even circle back with investors who said 'no'. You might have more cred with them.
Don't do that. They are not final arbiters of either talent or success.
Has YC ever considered a class of only single founders and trying to solve the problems YC anticipates with single founder startups (i.e. emotional support, etc...)
It seems to me that the demand is there, and the potential for single founders to succeed is certainly possible... why not experiment putting together a track that "fills in the blanks" for singe founders much the way YC does with legal and accounting for startups to get started.
Edit: I recognize the signaling issue of not being able to convince a cofounder to join, etc... but sometimes signals are just noise.
I get that SV is a great place to start a startup, all things being equal. But there are a lot of great opportunities that are 8-12 time zones away. And leaving your customers alone for 3 months -- especially if you are trying to grow rapidly during those 3 months -- sounds very risky. Additionally, the money spent living in SV for three months could otherwise be spent on working capital; this is extra true in developing markets where costs are lower.
In the absence of a formal policy change re: moving to SV for 3 months, would you be willing to extend a bit more leeway for founders who really want to get their companies into YC but don't want to spend too much time away from the customers they're trying to please?
As you point out, there are (some) good reasons that MV doesn't make sense, like your customers being very far away. That said, it's only three months.
I know Boston was tried, but that was 6 years ago? Considering your increased scope + larger overall size of YC now, it seems doable to have a retry on that front.
As a middle-aged developer, I've seen a lot in my lifetime, but I believe that right now, even though in some ways I'm much more hopeful for the future than I've ever been, I feel like there are many huge time-bombs out there in the world that make focusing on a startup just to have a chance to become financially successful a petty and, for some, a possibly futile ordeal.
For example: political divisiveness/change/chaos, scary world leaders and potential world leaders discussing/threatening/testing nuclear weapons, wars for and against religions involving terror, causing mass death, spawning racism and restricted freedoms, other random shootings/acts of violence, discord and violence between people that are racially targeted and those who want to serve the public to protect people regardless of their race, terrible diseases/epidemics some without cures or growing resistance to cures that we've long depended on, weather related natural disasters, economic troubles, etc. The list goes on and on.
Given the climate of the world today and all of our problems, what things do you want to see- not just in the startups that you and/or YC as a whole want to help, but across the board? And what do you say to those that think that just don't feel safe enough to invest the time, money, and effort on a startup which has a greater chance of failure than success when they could just be working a stable job to try to save enough to survive what is ahead?
The future will either be great or terrible--I think an intermediate outcome is unlikely. I think it's a super exciting time to be alive, but I feel the shared sense of responsibility most others do to do everything I can to get safely through the other side.
I understand the desire to save enough for a scary world ahead, and I think it's prudent to do that. Beyond, that, if you're nervous about these things, probably the most satisfying and reassuring thing you could do is figure out how to use your talents to maximize the chance of the a good outcome.
war - https://medium.com/@angushervey/the-decline-of-war-8760f9a5b...
democracy - https://ourworldindata.org/democratisation/
It turns out that most people (and certainly most journalists) want to talk about/write about the success cases.
I'll think about how to best do this.
In the startup world we have to be comfortable making mistakes, but I really want those to be new, interesting mistakes.
With all the startups you see, what are the common patterns to failing? A missing skill, lack of belief, timing, weak message etc?
If appropriate, how to recognise the warning signs to correct and avoid being the next failure.
I'd do it myself but lost some bookmarks in a recent crash/restore cycle.
I think it will help to talk about folks whose initial companies went under, and then succeeded later. Or failed later and kept on going.
(That being said I do agree with the implication of the question, that learning from failure is important and may need greater discussion.)
Here are my questions:
1. Do you think people need to get a PhD degree to become useful research scientist in AI industry?
2. Do you think people need to get a PhD degree to become Member of Technical Staff (Machine Learning) in Open AI?
Thank you.
As far as formally completing a degree (i.e. getting a printed piece of paper that says Ph.D. next to my name) I find it practically irrelevant for either getting hired in the industry or being useful once hired. My 2c.
1. Not at all. You need to develop a consistent work schedule that will consist of researching papers, applying the knowledge, and writing your own. There is a lot of theory and practice. Very exciting time to be in AI.
What you need is time and the interest in doing it. Feel free to email me if you have questions (not a sales pitch, just being friendly).
This is similar to the state of physics in the 18th century. Significant discoveries were made by gentlemen researchers.
Today it is very difficult to advance the boundaries of older, more well-established scientific disciplines like physics or biology without a high level of training--if not a doctorate specifically, its equivalent in education and training. AI will get there eventually as well.
IMO software in general is in its infancy. We still build important computer programs the same way gunsmiths made guns in the 18th century--by hand, using intuition and art as much as science.
2. Definitely not!
I personally think these same skills can be found outside of PhDs.
If not, what would you need to see from an application with no product to be accepted into YC?
If so, what was about that application that made you believe in them so much?
It's known YC prefers teams. Do you have a preferred shape or size for the team (2 tech, 1 marketing, or 1 tech, 1 web, 1 marketing and business etc); is any combination shown to be more likely to succeed within YC?
How do you view teams too heavy on tech? It's common for a group of tech people to have the idea, but as a team have some gaps on say the marketing side, and probably other areas.
A startup I was involved in, years ago, lacked much depth in sales and marketing. Filling that gap was a nightmare. Candidates would happily talk out of their hat, claim allsorts they didn't have, and those we trialled failed hard then invent no end of "reasons" why it's working perfectly. Suddenly recruiting programmers was easy!
Even people we've known in this area suffered from at least some of these habits, sometimes meaning it's a case of "nice guy, don't trust him as co founder". Made it hard to resolve, so the least worst techie got stuck with site copy etc.
No surprise, I've learnt much more about online marketing since those days. :)
If no one on the team is good or is willing to get good at sales and 'business', that's a problem.
eg. 3 sales and business, one tech/developer
1) Dig into exact contributions to campaigns for past roles. Ask for the logic around decisions. Often marketers talk about their campaigns results but really they were a body in a room with little input. Dig for detail and motivations to decisions and you will find out who is who.
2) Look for initiative. Many marketeers repeat what is always done optimising here and there. Especially for dynamic businesses i'd look for people that see the world independently of their enviroment, have the initiative to shift how things are done. This is someone that will deliver results vs turn wheels for the sake of it.
3) Look for someone that has experience working big and small companies. The big brands will train comms, project management and procedure. Small brands should give the 'getting it done' skills, generalist experience and show they can get technical/dirty hands. Larger brand experience can look impressive but often the work is more project management for agencies and doesnt suit hand on. Likewise if you're business is big enough to run agencies if someone has always been hands on they can be weak project managers and communicate needs ineffectively.
4) Find someone that can analyse data vs report it. There's a big difference in the 2 and the former is surprisingly rare.
5) Avoid anyone that shows narcissistic tendency or is generally 'me' focused. This personality tends to be bad comms people (especially with social) as they see the world from their POV, not the customers.
6) Give marketers product input. They should have their finger on the customer pulse and valuable views on what sell/motivates users. Dont let tech side shut out marketing.
7) Don't go cheap. I often see startups advertising low paid roles a couple years experience, while they pay for experienced developers. Half the price sounds great but they will bring a fraction of the value.
8) Make sure they have a budget. This goes well with the above point. Generally I'd say a 10-20x marketing salary would be a good rule of what you should be looking to spend if bringing a permanent marketing role in.
9) Sales and marketing are not the same thing. Know what you need. They dont often come all-in-one.
10) While not an absolute I usually check linkedin contacts to skill endorsements ratio. Typically this ratio is higher for the people I know are good marketers. I wouldn't make my decision by this but is seems one of those soft indicators.
11) When you interview give a 10min exercise before to discuss and cover up real-time actual skills. E.g. show them some relevant to role campaign materials (e.g. landing pages/EDM's) and ask them how they would improve. Ask them what they would do with $50k. Typically I add in some spelling/grammar mistakes to also look for attention to detail as it tends to be a 'you have it or you dont' skill (like initiative) and not something you can train up.
...hope that's useful...not a rant :)
Definitely matches some of the fun we had trying to figure it out in the dark.
> 11) When you interview give a 10min exercise before to discuss and cover up real-time actual skills. E.g. show them some relevant to role campaign materials (e.g. landing pages/EDM's) and ask them how they would improve.
Be very careful to keep an open mind when judging this one! If you are a non-marketer trying to hire a Director of Marketing, you are not going to be able to answer this question better than a qualified candidate. If their answer seems wrong to you, be sure to dig into their reasoning, past experiences, etc. to see why they answered the way they did.
If they omitted something that you thought was important, it's probably worth saying, "What about that big, ugly, magenta call-to-action button? Shouldn't it be green and fit with the rest of the design, perhaps?" You might be wrong! At least give them a chance to say, "I noticed that (how could I not?), but I've been surprised in several A/B campaigns to find that call-to-action buttons that stand out trump aesthetics in terms of conversion rates. If the design team wants to change it, I would certainly work with them to come up with a solution that looks good and converts. Otherwise, I have much more certainty that initiatives X, Y, and Z will have a real, measurable impact on discoverability and conversion."
=====
Secondly:
> 5) Avoid anyone that shows narcissistic tendency or is generally 'me' focused.
I totally agree here (but I'm biased because my spouse is not at all a narcissist). Be sure that your hiring process doesn't select against these people! If you're hiring for qualities like (over-)confidence, where you favor candidates who seem certain of themselves, you're doing it wrong.
In general, before writing off a candidate, try to dig into what you perceive to be their weaknesses. They may be stronger than you think in those areas. Again, if you think they're wrong about something, investigate that, too, as you may be the one who is wrong.
=====
Thirdly and finally, do NOT make the mistake of selecting for familiarity with your market. This is akin to hiring a senior developer based on what technologies they know. It is the job of a marketer to dive into a market with little-to-no prior knowledge and understand it quickly. A good marketer will join all the relevant forums, follow influencers on social media, etc. and understand your market better than you do within a few weeks.
If you see a marketing candidate with experience in several sectors, none of which include your own, that's an excellent sign, not a negative one.
Good luck!
How would an Indian startup trying to build a global product primarily for the U.S / Europe market fit into the scheme of things?
My general criticism of non-US startups (this is very general and there are important exceptions) is that too many are building the <<US Company>> for <<home country>>.
I think it's more exciting to build something brand new that someone in the US will copy.
Do you think the start-up structure of running a business could increase or decrease income inequality (and what do you consider beneficial?)
I'm very interested in basic income and we're running a large experiment on it. If that doesn't work we have some other ideas.
Does it make sense to keep applying to YC, given our size now? From what I understand, we got rejected every time because our equity split is around 80-20, which makes us more like a single-founder company. We would have liked to be part of YC but if YC strongly prefers not to consider single-founder companies then we would save time and not apply.
We try to help as much as we can.
What should I know about applying based on that?
Also, for the competitors question, should I put a list of 15-20 names I made, or choose the top 3 or so?
Finally: I may be able to launch within the next few days. Should I try to launch and wait to apply until I have launch data, or should I apply now? (The nature of the startup is consumer facing and I think I can gain some traction within the first week.)
Top 3.
Wait to apply until you have launch data if you think it will be significant (but still apply before the deadline, the bar for late apps is definitely higher).
Genuinely curious. It's a very interesting data point.
just like the rest of yc, taking care of yourself and your cofounder relationship is DIY but we offers resources to help. i'm an executive coach (with a specialty in startup founders) and our founders book office hours with me when they need support around managing stress/anxiety, troubleshooting conflict in difficult relationships (with cofounders, investors, loved ones, etc), communicating effectively, and generally thriving on the roller coaster of startup founderdom.
i also provide referrals to therapists and coaches when necessary. it depends on what the founder's looking for and what they need.
i'm happy to answer any other questions you have about this.
My first thought after reading this was that it may be kind of like being a resident advisor. I was an RA for Freshman in undergrad, and found it very rewarding helping students make the transition to a college lifestyle. Although this has a bit higher stakes, working with young founders likely isn't very fundamentally different.
How do I get your job?
I would wager that if you take a look at an accurate distribution of markets according to potential you would find a magnitude more small/average markets (that are untapped) than billion dollars ones. And similarly, I suspect that the success rate for those "boring" ventures is much higher than the exciting shiny rising stars.
Question: Why not optimize for companies that are certainly not going to become Airbnbs but will capture the full value of an averagely sized market (say between 50 and 300 millions)? And if my guess is correct and they end-up eating a lot less resources than the soon-to-be-unicorns, you could even optimise for volume.
Is the pay-off (wrt. to the energy spent and success rate) for unicorns really worth it?
2) These companies are the most fun to work with.
3) It turns out that it's harder than it sounds to capture the full value of a smaller market for a bunch of reasons, and so the failure rate is much higher than expected.
I think the payoff, at least in our case, is well worth it.
What kind of reasons? Direct me to some resources if there are too many to enumerate
Some friends and I were throwing around ideas on how to eliminate scalping, a practice we get bitten by. We came up with some solutions that might work, but they don't provide any financial gain for event organisers so I couldn't see them going for it.
Sorry :(
Not sure how you're conceptualizing this that makes scalpers harmful, could you elaborate?
But if you want an answer other than that:
Start learning programming tonight. There are a lot of tools online, and it takes awhile. While you're doing that, start making an active effort to notice problems in the world.
serious question
The negative signal for us is you apply 5 times in a row without anything improving or changing.
Any ideas how your 'YC cities' thing is going to look?
Not yet.
It's harder to be effective as a solo founder, so the burden of proof is higher.
Twitter seems to be the example du jou, but there are many.
Sometimes the way to get that is with a user experience. Sometimes with technology. Often it's something else entirely. It really depends on the company.
Do you feel the YC partners are mainly bullish or bearish irt cryptocurrencies?
I'm still fairly bullish myself and hold a lot of bitcoin. I think this is a far, far better time to go long bitcoin or start a bitcoin company than 2014, for many reasons including that the hype is gone.
If not then how quickly can the [unrelated] problem below be solved, algorithmically
Unrelated Problem: Given a set of numbers of length n, find a single rule that can map each item x to the corresponding item x+1
The format is just discussions. Some of them changed my mind about things, many didn't. No direct actions come out of it, but hopefully there are some benefits to smart people sharing ideas.
If you could make a $10B company on your own, but doing YC could make it be a $20B company, then it would obviously be well worth it.
are the odds stacked against us if we have 5 founders? (EE, ME, EE, SW, Sales/Business)
Also does a startup that can help reduce carbon emissions/move from something that generates lots of emission classify under the energy section of request for startup?
Is there a place for me in YCombinator?
(p.s. I have several other follow up questions I'd love to ask if you entertain me with a response)
We are the best in the world at helping people be some things, but probably not that :(
If not, it would be more appropriate for something like YC Research, which is a non-profit.
Alumni recommendations are useful if they're strong, but neutral or slightly negative if they're weak. If someone isn't excited enough to give you an independent recommendation with you asking, it's probably not worth requesting.
I understand you have limited resources and that YC's core is focused on fast growing companies, but some early-stage ideas/prototypes need a little help before becoming something YC would accept (and, it looks to me, the bar is higher every year).
The MOOC fills one part of the gap, but, will it enable promising students to get some sort of funding?
Though I think the answer to this is just to apply to YC. We fund lots of very, very early companies all the time.
My cofounder and I don't live in the same country so we're each recording half the video separately and then editing the pieces together. Does this affect us negatively in any way?
If you haven't spent significant time together in person, that's a red flag for us, as we've found those teams often (usually, even) fall apart.
But one of the advantages of our model is mistakes of inclusion are cheap.
For how many companies per batch, YC is a second accelerator? How many companies have raised Seed round?
I'd guess less than 10% are pre-accelerated.
A much larger percentage have raised some (usually a small amount, but not always) capital.
Is working at a start up a viable path for college graduates or is it recommended starting at a more established company?
Do you see Silicon Valley maintaining its dominance as a tech capital in future decades or will there be better entrepreneur ecosystems?
Which industries are ripe for entrepreneurship? Like the automobile industry at the moment has innovations of self-driving and electric energy source.
Thanks!
I expect the rest of the world will trend towards Silicon Valley. But I'm biased.
To find industries ripe for new companies, look for places where technology is causing a high rate of change.
What happens is that many people who don’t really care about politics most of the time take notice in the last few weeks of an election campaign because they know they will be voting. While not perfect, I think the good of “compulsory voting” outweighs the negative.
2. In the competition of web vs mobile? What would be their state after 10 years? Will there be more native mobile apps or websites?
Thanks!
Quick question 1: Is there a "Delaware C Corp" equivalent for the incorporation process/legal structures of nonprofits by state, or does it not matter?
Real question: Is there something to be said about founders waiting until they have users and initial growth to then use the YC opportunity to transition towards growing their company? In other words, if a startup is only getting one shot to go through YC, generally is finding initial product-market fit harder, or is growing the company?
Granted, the latter can't happen without the former happening first. But it would seem that for some founders that have genuine insights into real big problems, it would suck to waste the opportuniy of YC just "checking the boxes" of building their MVP, which they could know how to do already from PG's essays/YC's blog/Startup Class -- whereas they could be getting genuine advice on problems unique to their specific domain problem if they just waited and applied later.
RQ: In general I think waiting is a mistake, except that you should wait long enough to have a good idea about what you're going to do.
Do you prefer that companies have their own technology or is it okay that a company utilizes existing platforms in the beginning?
My team consist of CS and ME/EE.
It's PokeBin.com if you wanted more information.
How behind am I, assuming my primary goal is maximizing positive impact on the world?
But no reason to delay in making the impact you want.
Take a look at these projects
https://unrealcv.github.io https://gym.openai.com https://m.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/54p6zq/16090...
Put in another way, would there ever be a case where you'd recommend a bootstrapped company not take investment (assuming the terms were good) in the bay area?
EDIT: Particularly if there is potential synergy with a business component as well?
But for fun, here is my list:
•AI
•Biotechnology, especially anti-ID and anti-aging.
•Energy
•Better governance
•Education
There is no ideal stage, but they'll fund the most promissing of them. The more your startup grows and the more times you apply (= persistance and staying alive), the more interesting your startups gets, hence better the odds.
At Quero we applied 3 times before being invited for an inverview and approved.
Do you have any particular industries in mind to invest in? where do you see the most potential?
What sort of advice does YC offer founders when it comes to hiring early employees?
Our advice is: Hire slowly Be very generous with equity *Have a very high bar for early employees
i.e. might have no interest in presenting at demo day or pursue any further fundraising, but instead look for profitability and self-investment as the path to growth.
I think in some ways diversity in tech is very bad (e.g. very many, or perhaps nearly all, of the CEOs of 'unicorns' are white men).
I think YC has made good but not great progress here. I don't pretend to know all the answers. About 11% of the founders that apply to YC are women, and I've heard that's a fair bit higher than what other investors see.
We fund women (and Black and Latino founders) at very nearly the rate they apply. In addition to a pipeline problem, I think there are further problems once women and underrepresented minorities start companies that make it unwelcoming.
I also think the conversation has become so polarized by the extremes on both sides that I feel uneasy participating, and I know other people feel the same way. But I'll certainly keep doing whatever I can do to get YC to help.
We're always open to advice about what to do here.
1. What's the possibility of YC companies doing biz dev with LargeCorp during the 3 month bootcamp? Is this something that YC can help with due to it's large network etc.
We'd look for evidence that he or she could execute and make stuff happen.
This question is unrelated to YC. How often do you go with your gut in decision making, and how well does it turn out?
If there is not data, I am very happy (probably too happy) to make the best guess I can.
Do you agree with this? How do see these evolving?
For emerging industries like our's in the virtual reality space, there is so much money driving the industry into gaming and the desires of the bigger players like Facebook and Oculus. Is it more valuable to align with these bigger players and play along with their game, or disrupt the industry but risk being outcasted?
Thanks! Stan Sedberry Vidi VR
For example becoming a self taught programmer? Quadrupling one's income? Doing all that while starting a new family? I feel like I'm becoming significantly more formidable. But the side project that pulled me into becoming a programmer, itself, is still lacking clearly visible progress.
When to put this on the Internet to show you guys and how much should I have.
Working on this in my spare time is very difficult to get to a point I'm happy with. Maybe I should quit my job?
Be good to be super clear on this...
I have the idea, a v1 design, portion of the API, and incomplete web app prototype... all built by me. I lack the business plan in paper however have pretty cool ideas on how I can eventually generate income.
Is this enough to be considered? Have companies come to you with less while still being accepted?
I think YC adds far more than 7% of value to companies we fund. And I hate negotiating/conflict.
If it turns out it's better to offer part-time startup accelerators, then the market will speak.
One comment I have to make .. risk is the name of the start up game. Maybe business in general. You cannot completely de-risk it and still call it a business.
Q: Do you see any value in business school for people who want to pursue entrepreneurship?
A: Basically no, it sounds undiplomatic, but business school was designed to teach people management. Management is a problem that you only have in a startup if you are sufficiently successful. So really what you need to know early on to make a start up successful is developing products. You would be better off going to design school if you would want to go to some sort of school. Although frankly the way to learn how to do it is just to do it. One of the things I got wrong early on is that I advised people who were interested in starting a startup to go work for some other company for a few years before starting their own. Honestly the best way to learn on how to start a startup is just to just try to start it.
P.S.: I'm talking about a case where only the subsidiary has applied for YC and that subsidiary is making a different product than what the parent company is making.
1. Would YC consider a media/publishing company that is not really a tech startup short of leveraging tech to reach a broader audience. (it's more like investigative journalism to arm buyers with info. needed to negotiate better deals.)
2. The info. in these reports can capture value by being sold right away, but giving the info. away for free is more in line with the mission of eliminating information asymmetry (by selling we are just replacing one inbalance, with another)...so is it better to capture initial value...or try to build trust to the point of people going straight to you to research purchases...and monetize later on or with add-ons (i.e. outsourced negotiation.) or eventually becoming the defacto source for consumer research (which is bound to be monetizable one way or another)?
Do you think it helps, as a founder and in life, to be optimistic rather than realistic?
No matter how early and rough, show your product to potential customers and listen to what they say. You'll learn more from an hour doing this than a month of brainstorming with your team about what features you should someday maybe add to make your product compelling.
Over many cycles of sharing many prototypes with customers, you'll figure out what your future users actually want your product to do. This will almost always be way different than your original vision.
And stop worrying about whether you're too early: many of our best startups get rejected before applying again with progress and getting accepted. Pretty much everybody thinks they're too early or late for YC, and they're all wrong;)
(Disclaimer: I work for YC advising hardware startups.)
Rigetti computing was accepted with no traction but the founder had significant market expertise.
That said, keen to hear what kind of milestones are expected of early stage hardware startups.
$10K revenue per month
100,000 monthly users (or 100 recurring enterprise customers)
10% monthly growth
Hopefully will be ready to talk about it early 2017.
Is it a good/bad idea to found a startup in a market that is no longer saturated but also has big players (such as social media?
It could be good or bad depending on details, but it's certainly not always bad.
what's you opinion on product managers and when/do you think a startup should hire one?
Have you ever considered writing a startup book?
I know that's not what you're looking for, but at least it gets us close!
I know you know a bunch of people who are concerned about technological stagnation and I was curious about your personal take on it.
Thanks