Y Combinator’s “No Idea” Round Isn’t a Bad Idea, It’s Awesome | Hacker News Reader

Y Combinator’s “No Idea” Round Isn’t a Bad Idea, It’s Awesome

viniciusvacanti.com

30 pointsdanest25 comments

Am I the only one that's tired of the absolutist arguments without any substantive evidence that seem to plague social news sites?

We have no idea if Y Combinator's "No Idea" thing is good or bad. I suspect YC doesn't know either and once they do, unless they let us know how it worked out, we still won't know. No amount of prognostication will answer the question. It's a real pet peeve of mine when people who don't know what they're talking about not only answer questions, but go above and beyond that to answer them definitively.

The only mistake you've made is submitting this as a comment instead of a blog post as it is clear that you can play these types of arguments out piece by piece on blog posts that will make it to the HN front page.

I suspect YC has a good idea the "No Idea" thing will work. Why test ideas you think are bad?

From what I've heard, ad hoc teams already happen in the YC program for various reasons. This is not a completely untested hypothesis.

In my opinion this is just like the way record labels started creating bands out of thin air without any substance.

They gathered potential talented people, form the band write songs for them, decide their image, their sound, etc.

This doesn't mean that this model won't work, it just means that they are not really artists.

The same thing is happening here. How can you be called an entrepreneur if you can't even come up with an idea?

Entrepreneurship is not for everybody. But if you don't have an idea, then you really should not be looking to be an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs undertake something; "The French infinitive 'entreprendre' translates as 'to undertake' " (from Wikipedia).

If you have no ideas to undertake, then undertake other people's ideas by joining an existing company.

Although if you called your startup "The Monkees" they might have a basis for a lawsuit :-)

More seriously though, my experience is that smart, motivated people get stuff done. And putting them in a situation with a deadline is one way to entice them to get something done (its the way college works after all :-))

As with many things, starting can be quite hard and I see the experiment YC is running as a way of seeing if incenting these folks to start will produce good results. Regardless of the outcome its a good experiment to run as it can inform future estimates on the available folks for creating new companies.

I agree. But we have seen from experience, that people that have trouble finding something to undertake are better off working on other people's ideas. If they have what it takes to be an entrepreneur, they will find their idea while working on another.

This is why people working for Google, Facebook, and startups become really great entrepreneurs. They live the life, they learn the trade and then when they get an idea they have everything in the world to succeed.

But in turn, if you just came out of college, being an Entrepreneur sounds good, let's try it without any clue on what you are doing, then it is going to be a waste of your time.

But I have to agree. YC trying it does not mean is wrong or bad. It might work, but they have to understand these engineers will not be entrepreneurs, at least not in their first instance.

Perhaps the best way to look at it is that YC is trying to hire good engineers to help with ideas they have themself (YC) or to join other YC teams which they find promising.

That is a great idea, but I think YC is not going for that. Because everybody that is accepted at YC calls itself an entrepreneur. It is extremely misleading for people applying without an idea.

That's an interesting way to look at it, although at that point using the words "startup" and "entrepreneur" are more marketing than anything else.

I think what people object to about this "no idea" idea is the feeling that this is just more control being shifted from founders to the same small group of rich and powerful tech kingmakers.

I don't know how valid that objection is, I guess we'll have to see, but it's likely a good thing for the community to discuss (although I doubt that discussion will happen here all that much).

My objection to the idea is really contingent on what YC is trying to do:

1. Get groups without an idea or product to cultivate and implement their own ideas. I think this is their primary goal, but to be honest, I have absolutely no clue whether it will work. I would wager, however, that this idea would work, especially with a good group that can deal with the pressure well.

2. Match these kickass development groups with another YC pitched idea. This is less clear how it would work, because it turns YC into a consulting/temp agency. I'm also not sure what the groups would be working for. Would it be for pay through YC, or for equity in the new startup? This, I think, is the worry for a lot of people, because it would result(like freshhawk mentioned) control being shifted away from the founders.

A fairly tawdry argument in this article.

Dustin said, simply, that you shouldn't become an entrepreneur just for the sake of becoming one. You should have an idea that you're energised about and want to build.

The fact that Zuckerberg had ideas before Facebook doesn't mean that YC's "no idea" round is a good idea.

Zuckerberg was building things and tinkering before Facebook: that's the exact opposite of not having any ideas. Literally, that is the opposite. He had ideas. He worked on them.

Oh! I think I get it now! I know why people write about YC when they aren't in YC, aren't affiliated with YC, and run businesses that are orthogonal to YC. They want to get to the top of hacker news and maybe get their job advert read by the selective crowd of hacker news:

"We're currently looking for a lead interaction designer. If you think you're up for it, email jobs@yipit.com" -sidebar of author's website

1.) This strategy that has a high likelihood of working.

2.) I don't see anything wrong with it.

Is there an unwritten rule that one must be affiliated with YC to have an opinion about the program?

No! If I was in his position I would do the same thing.

I wasn't writing with a sarcastic intent. It's hard to be genuinely surprised about realizing something on the internet without coming across that way it seems. I honestly just figured out why he might have considering writing about YC at all given his background.

I don't agree. As a person who has applied in the past, a developer and a sole founder, why would I submit my idea with no NDA to basically a think tank of clerical ivy league wunderkind waiting in the wings for a call from PG for a shovel ready project or a "pivot." All this in exchange for a "thanks but no thanks dude!"

I was on the fence before about applying to "incubators" (I know YC is technically not a incubator), but this solved it for me. Ideas are worthless, execution is only slightly more valuable and YC is an idea execution factory. To be honest, it's an enviable position. I do appreciate the transparency.

If ideas were worth so little, wouldn't firms tend to become more monolithic? I feel that ideas are worth more than execution now. It is cheaper and cheaper to execute, but problem solving and creativity, the things that tend to break down atomically into groups of 0-3 founders, are holding their value, or becoming relatively more valuable. I think, personally, that people like to parrot this "ideas are worthless" line but I think that it is conventional wisdom at best and flat wrong at worst. I think "no idea" rounds rely on the fact that investors know that execution risk is getting lower. But finding idea people as atoms is getting harder. If the opposite were true, individual or small clusters of founders would not be so highly valued.

Maybe YC should pivot and give founders 7% as a royalty for their idea?

Maybe YC is just trying to catch elusive human resources in its net and deploy them to projects that have been vetted by its network of advisors and affiliates?

Payments are made in the form of equity or convertible debt - no need for nasty perpetual licenses in the form of royalty payments. If many startup web businesses are not taking in much cash, but are rather meant to be sold on to larger business as interlocking pieces in the advertising money deployment machine, why commit to a stream of cash payments in the future?

No-idea recruiting is a way to shake out people who may be valuable to plug into startups but for some reason are not coming up with the right ideas themselves. Or at least that is my opinion.

I actually think the conventional wisdom is that ideas are valuable. After all, how often have you told someone an idea and had them tell you to patent it, with the understood implication that you'll somehow be made wealthy just from the idea.

I don't think any of your points really hold water. Even a world in which ideas are worth equally as much as execution would make no sense. I can't fly to work in a picture of a flying car; the execution for new vehicles hasn't gotten any cheaper or there would be more novelty car companies. I can't network with my friends using Diaspora. If execution were so easy, there should be ten decentralized Facebook clones with proper privacy guarantees by now, and there aren't. Spend four hours walking around, wherever you are, and you can find a dozen or more people convinced they have brilliant web ideas they just don't know how to execute. Everyone who can't program is an "idea man." Separating terrible ideas from the rest isn't hard, but without time travel it's impossible to distinguish decent ideas from extraordinary ones.

The Valley is becoming more and more insular and self-referencing. From outside, where I am, it looks to me like a mirror of the setup for the housing bubble, where the value of everything today is zero and the value of everything tomorrow is infinite, so nobody is doing anything today except trading the possibility of doing more and better things tomorrow. An idea or a founder might be worth a lot in this environment right now, but I don't think this situation is sustainable.

I can't address sweeping dismissals but I can offer another narrative. A few years ago Hacker News started to become popular. PG blogged about things and wrote books and raised his profile and the profile of this site, and the profile of the companies in which he invested. Around this time it became clear that it was getting easier to start web companies. Cheaper in raw dollars to setup, you could hire fewer people who could support more users. This is true. It was mildly insightful in 2008 to say this, but now people put their scalability recipes on slideshare and it's clear that a small team can "execute" their ideas more easily now. And this is just in the world of "tech" which I think is mis-labelled.

It has nothing to do with geography, despite the efforts of propaganda emanating from the Valley to convince you otherwise.

By all means don't take my word for it, but by the same token don't fly off the handle talking about flying cars. Just think quietly about how impossible many businesses that currently exist would be a decade ago. I never said anything about the Valley in my previous post. I don't have anything to do with the Valley, but your remoteness from it doesn't help your post gain any clarity.

Pretty sure @kn0thing got into YC essentially with no idea (PG wasn't into the food ordering idea but liked them). Hard to argue that was a mistake.

YC views the idea as proof of experimentation and in turn a bias for doing and not only thinking. It would be like NFL scouts watching tape of prospects doing home improvements around campus instead of placing football to decide what they physical school sets were. The idea is a lense in which to judge talents they consider statistically more likely to produce a successful entrepreneur.

The other good point already made was that YCs investment best leveraged if you ready almost right away. No matter how you smart you are, identifying a problem, creating a solution and assembling a team takes time, valuable time. In most cases this process would put you a bit further out from some of the expertise that YC has to offer.

I think what the 'No Idea' misses is that if there is a team which is absolutely amazing and can theoretically come into YC and amaze everybody with their capabilities, don't you think they'd be able to come up with an idea?

PG even gives a list of things he'd like to see built, take one of those if you don't have your own, but not having anything to me seems like a bit of a cop-out.

So let's say me and a superstar cast of Iron Man and the Incredible Hulk are accepted as a "no idea group".

.... What do we do the next day? What do we work on? I can totally get behind the idea that they're funding the founders and not the idea but there has to be some idea at some point, right? Why not the day before the application instead of the day after?

I would tell them to focus on a big problem that they are passionate about and have some credibility.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com