Hacker News Reader

Comment by exit | Hacker News Reader

what did you say to pg et al when they asked, "what if google just does this themselves"?

That's one of the canonical dumb investor questions. We try not to ask those. Google could blow most startups out of the water if they chose to focus on building exactly the same thing. What protects startups is that in practice big competitors can only focus on a limited number of things at once.

User indifference is a much, much greater danger for startups than competitors, big or small. So we advise startups to focus on that. What's going to kill you is the Back button, not Google.

Awesome point and I couldn't agree more. As usual your articulation of it is better than anything else I have read before.

we didn't ask that question because we don't care what the answer is. the biggest threat is almost always from another startup anyway, not google/microsoft/etc so we want to back the best founders. if you've met the rapportive team, you'll see pretty quickly why we funded them.

Could you elaborate on why you wouldn't care? A competitor is a competitor, no matter if they're an elephant that can make waves, or a cheetah that can pivot on the dime. Shouldn't the mantra be to focus more on what your customers want/need rather than worry about threats from other companies?

because at the stage we invest at, we assume the idea is inevitably going to change so we're really looking at how strong the founders are. that's why it doesn't matter to us if google could 'do it themselves' or if there's competition from other startups, since we're funding the team not the idea.

Could you elaborate about the qualities that you look for in a founding team?

Relentlessly Resourceful[0]

[0]http://www.paulgraham.com/relres.html

YC has invested in the company, not the product. They see enough good signs to be interested in networking into the company and investing in its potential success.

Even if the sub-20k investment doesn't pan out, YC is going to get good press and goodwill out of this. Other YC companies will absorb some of the buzz around any YC success.

The above all increases Rapportive's chance to flip the company even if only under the Greater fool theory.

Because frankly, Google does half-assed work these days. Small companies can do very well just by cloning and supporting various features and applications that Google has already abandoned. Worrying about what Google might do in the future is just silly.

Consider all the posts made to HN by users mourning the loss of Etherpad, for instance... and look back at them in light of what's happened. Google fashioned the technology into a proof of concept called "Wave," shipped it, started to build a user base, then - oh, look, a bicycle. I wonder if it's one of the new carbon-fiber Cannondales?

Basically, Google has a severe case of corporate ADD, just like any number of organizations who have failed to capitalize on assets they already owned. Believe me, entrepreneurs can eat very well from Google's table scraps.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com