Hacker News Reader

MS and Apple happened to come along when the microcomputer was really starting to take off, and they were able to ride that wave

That was the point I was making with those examples: that technology evolves independently of the stock market. So if it's time to build the Apple I or Altair Basic, do it whether the economy is good or bad.

After reading the Woz interview in Founders, it's obvious that he wasn't paying much attention to the stock market. He was too busy doing what he loved. Their initial business approach (cash for product) may have been produced by their times, but they didn't let that stand in the way.

And that's the lesson for me. All I can control is my immediate situation. The other stuff is just noise best drowned out by hard work at things I enjoy.

Technology doesn't evolve independently of a market for it. While "make something people want" is true in any economy, the problem is that what people want changes with the state of the economy. So startup founders need to reassess the market for their products (building iPods or building pacemakers?), and I'd guess many will decide this is not the right economy for their startups, and some will now discover new opportunities.

You do touch upon this a little bit in your article, where you mention startups that save customers money will succeed more in a bad economy. But I thought the more general assertion wasn't made.

I've often thought that the mantra make something people want should be amended to make something people want to pay for. It's an important distinction. It's the difference between Richard Stallman and Steve Jobs, between Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates. I have great respect for all of those individuals, but I don't look to Stallman or Torvalds for business inspiration. I don't doubt that all YC companies have made something people want, but I wonder whether all have made something people want to pay for.

Neither Stallman nor Torvalds are scrambling to pay rent.

So it depends if you want to be "well off" (Stallman), "obscenely rich" (Torvalds), "shockingly rich" (Jobs), or "embarassingly rich" (Gates).

And I think that most would, given the choice, rather be the BDFL of a project they obviously enjoy (Torvalds), than spend all day in meetings, or managing management, or whatever Gates has done for the last decade. Unless you're a masochist, or a megalomaniac.

And besides that, lightning has to strike the same place 200 times before you make it to the 99.9th percentile.

"I'm trying to make a living; if you're trying to make a killing then you're stuck in the system."

>Neither Stallman nor Torvalds are scrambling to pay rent.

I've heard rumors that Torvalds wishes he had the money Jobs and Gates have. So, yeah, a little unhappy.

>And besides that, lightning has to strike the same place 200 times before you make it to the 99.9th percentile.

That's if you're in a bell-curve. If you're in a zipf-distribution, lightning only has to strike once.

If you can make something that people want, but don't want to pay for, then you can probably make money indirectly from it: by selling t-shirts, giving after-dinner speeches, or whatever.

one of the problems with web-apps is that while they are cheap to get going ... many traditional VCs look elsewhere for their next investments.

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

yep, that's not a problem with web-apps, that's a problem with traditional VCs...

I wonder if a cooler external economy might actually give a startup more time to stabilize its platform, find its market, etc. etc. before exiting. This might actually produce better startups, on average.

(Here, "better" = chance of becoming profitable, and relevant to the web, for the long term; "better" != chance of cashing out for megabucks within a year or two; i.e. "better" for me as a web user.)

Or for buyers?

MS and Apple happened to come along when the microcomputer was really starting to take off

There are very good waves to ride right now. For example: Cloud computing, IPv6, Energy Saving, and moving everything out there to AJAX.

All of those will obsolete other technologies and most will save money.

Indeed, there are a ton of web-apps that probably will never take off. Still, there is the big advantage that you can build a prototype almost for free.

Other fields (solar, biotech, whatever) might require way more money to start. For real stuff, like machines, not for swag and parties.

Having nothing than an idea, how do you convince a VC that you need a ton of money, given the current economic situation?

Still, there is the big advantage that you can build a prototype almost for free.

As we build, this point still amazes me. If you're willing to put in the time and effort, the cost is not prohibitive. Build in spite of the VCs, not because of them. If your product is good enough, users will force them to find a path to your door. And, of course, you still have a day and a half:

http://ycombinator.com/w2009.html

> I would look to solar and certain other viable alternative energy options right now as the next major tech growth sector.

Right. The next wave is further electrification, new power generation, and first world infrastructure renewal. New advanced rail and massive rail line build outs. Rebuilding sewage and water systems. Alternative energy. Revamping agriculture for expensive oil and scarce fresh water will also be a big hi-tech area.

I'm sure the garage hackers will make money here and there as part of the wave, but they will be auxiliary; not like with the PC or internet booms. The main stage will be the capital intensive stuff working with actual raw materials.

Why stop there? I think the next wave is that the world will revert to a mainly agricultural economy. I'm sure artisans will make money here and there (repairing plows and so on) but they will be auxiliary...

A modern vegetable farm or hothouse operation is eight times as hi-tech as your ruby on rails site. A maglev train and its infrastructure eight times again.

You should become a limited partner at Kleiner; they share many of your thoughts.