Hacker News Reader

Comment by ed | Hacker News Reader

This is not "the next big thing." It's actually symptomatic of a bug in silicon valley culture - high profile entrepreneurs aren't allowed to fail in the same way as normal folks.

When these studios work, it's not because the studio approach is inherently a better way to do things, but rather because the people running them are really awesome.

The only reason to start a studio, as far as I can tell, is to set the expectation you'll release a few crappy products at first.

This is normally what a startup does anyway. I guess the difference is that high-profile entrepreneurs aren't given the same leeway to fail, which kind of sucks.

View on HN

Trust me, they can fail. I have both been one of these and invested in these.

They often get a first pass free but they still have to succeed in the normal way.

My next thing is unlikely to be venture backed until it already has some success or momentum.

I read the grandparent post as "People in Silicon Valley often have the unrealistic expectation that everything a previously-successful entrepreneur does will succeed. When their first try inevitably doesn't work, this poisons the well for subsequent refinement and iteration. As a result, previously-successful entrepreneurs are creating startup labs to set the expectation that everything coming out of it is an experiment and insulate themselves from the PR backlash of trying some dumb ideas to get to a good one."

Which is not at-odds with your comment, although as a previously-successful entrepreneur, perhaps you can speak to whether or not there really is that backlash and premature judgment that he posits.

(Personally, as someone without much of a brand name, I relish the freedom that gives me to try stupid stuff. There's no way I'd be brave enough to try my current startup attempt - which is really quite humble - if everyone expected me to invent the next big thing.)

I think that it is hard to build great products if you raise money first. Success is corrosive.

>My next thing is unlikely to be venture backed until it already has some success or momentum.

Can you elaborate a bit, Joshu? I took this to mean that you're electing not to seek venture backing early because of how it might skew incentives, but I can imagine some alternate readings as well.

I think that it is better discipline to raise when you have a product that needs it, rather than beforehand. There are many unnecessary ways to fail if you raise out of order.

Failing is pretty hard in any case way.

I would speculate that this meta-startup makes sense for career entrepreneurs in the same way that a media startup makes sense for media people or medical people starting medical startups. It's kind of like YC being started by experienced startups guys. They knew about startups and they started a startup that leveraged that.

I like the general idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com