
A Conversation with Paul Graham [video] - doppp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WO5kJChg3w
======
auston
Loved that video. I miss having PG be a very vocal and frequent voice of YC.

There was a question about the financial risk of launching early - PG's answer
was really good, but it seemed pretty clear to me: Launching early costs less
time and money. So you should launch something that works, as soon as possible
with the minimum number of people required to build something useful (probably
2-4 people). Beyond that, you make your "vision" meet reality, where you can
do magical things like learn from users/customers, which is basically
priceless.

------
RyanShook
“The mistake you will most likely make as a startup founder is coming up with
your own vision of what your product should be instead of getting feedback
from actual users.”

~~~
Razengan
You have to be a user of your own product to really make it good.

Look at Apple. Most of how they got where they are is by Jobs, Ive et al.
making what _they_ wanted to see, and nitpicking at everything until they were
satisfied.

Also: "people don't know what they want until you show it to them."

Of course you have to address customers' frustrations, but relying on just
"data" and marketing feedback all the time often results in an sterile, rigid
product that will always be at risk of disruption by someone with more soul
(unless you buy them out with the money you made by playing it safer :)

~~~
redshirtrob
This sentiment really bothers me. It's frequently used to disadvantage
candidates from positions because they're not users of the service or product.
It's just not generally true, but it's often repeated as though it were.

It's demonstrably not true that you must be a user of a product to build a
good product. To pick a random example: I doubt all pacemaker firmware
developers have heart conditions that require pacemakers. I can conjure plenty
of similar examples--some from my own work history.

That's not to say you shouldn't empathize with your users. You should. And,
that's not to say it's not sometimes an advantage to also be a user of a
product or service. I suspect it can be an advantage in many circumstances.
But, I don't think it's a necessary condition to make something really good.

~~~
thecleaner
The pacemaker example doesn't resonate with me. Its a very well-posed problem
- don't let the patient die. You don't have to be user to understand how to
make things better. For things like personal computing its a bit different.
Problems are very ill-posed and often the question is what to make. In the
second category its better to start with a map of the future and refine it
with user feedback. However often users don't know what they want and then you
need folks like Jobs.

~~~
redshirtrob
Perhaps I should have quoted the specific point I was responding to:

> You have to be a user of your own product to really make it good.

That doesn't say anything about product or market. It's a very general
statement that I happen to find rather dangerous in terms of hiring/employment
practices. I tossed out pacemakers as a very obvious counter-example. I could
come up with plenty of others--some from my own work experience.

I did try to couch the comment a bit. I do think there's value in being a user
of your own product. I do not think it's a necessary precondition though. And
treating it as such unnecessarily constrains the candidate pool. That's the
point I was trying to make.

~~~
batteryhorse
It's like being a chef but not wanting to eat the food you cook.

For example, a lot of people want their salmon cooked extremely well done,
when you as the chef, think this is wrong, but this is what the customer
wants, so you do it anyway, but you no longer care about it.

------
sebslomski
For the people on the go like me, here's a podcast feed link with the video:
Overcast: [https://overcast.fm/+OcWu1RUwE](https://overcast.fm/+OcWu1RUwE)
Feed: [https://podsync.net/pH3E-Qhxn](https://podsync.net/pH3E-Qhxn)

~~~
joseakle
Thank you :)

------
dennisgorelik
[https://youtu.be/4WO5kJChg3w?t=745](https://youtu.be/4WO5kJChg3w?t=745)

\---

And we got him an earring. There are photographs on the Internet of Robert
Morris with an earring.

\---

I could not find such photographs ...

[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22robert+morris%22+viaweb+e...](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22robert+morris%22+viaweb+earring&biw=1745&bih=866&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVg9aG5prdAhVFn-
AKHcj8ChkQ_AUICygC)

~~~
aliakhtar
[http://paulgraham.com/pierced.html](http://paulgraham.com/pierced.html)

------
GomatiTech
One thing I got out of this video is the concept of "quantum of utility". It
was to answer the question "When to launch?" \-- launch when you have
something that someone can use that wasn't there before, a new feature.

~~~
ruang
Much better than vague concept of “MVP”

------
Aeveus
The point regarding different levels of commitment is really interesting. I've
seen a few start-ups die out, because a subset of founders wasn't happy with
the level of commitment of the other(s). But having the determination to get
there, that's a great point.

------
leoc
The odd thing is that form-based web applications must surely have right away
seemed fairly obvious and familiar to people at IBM mainframe shops who were
used to block-oriented terminals [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block-
oriented_terminal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block-oriented_terminal) .
The continuations-based design that Viaweb ended up using would be another
story though.

------
ryeguy_24
Paul Graham says that long time employees from certain companies make really
poor entrepreneurs. Does anyone know to which companies he is referring?

~~~
nlowell
Did he say certain companies? The part I remember was just that people who
have been employees for 20 years probably wouldnt be good founders. I assumed
the implication is that a founder is someone with too much angst, ambition, or
arrogance to be comfortable working for other people for 20 years.

------
fullofsid
The knowledge and insights pg has deserves more conversations like this

------
submeta
Man he was really hating windows. To a point where he "wrote software for it
without writing software for it directly"

~~~
nabla9
Everyone how had experience from alternatives hated Windows.

You have now idea how bad, inelegant and even technologically behind the
Window's was back then. They exploited their monopoly power to the max.

Microsoft hated and did not care about the internet protocols. They pushed
NetBEUI instead. Early Windows socket API was crap and unreliable compared to
BSD sockets. and Netscape and web apps provided major service for abstracted
that shit away. I think Intel engineers had basically rewrite the TCP/IP stack
for MS at some point.

Today people see X Window System as outdated, but at the time it was simpler,
better and more robust than Windows. We actually bought number of gigantic but
old dummy graycolor X window terminals and connected it to old 386 Linux
server we used as a development machine and it was a great experience compared
to anything Windows.

I was working in a small company that did mostly stuff for Unix (and linux)
but unlike PG and Viaweb we decided to develop complex IDE to Windows and it
had to work everywhere in the world. It was just horrible programming
experience.

~~~
cookiecaper
Windows is still a disaster for everything but the MS-specific stack exposed
through Visual Studio, including (especially?) sysadmin.

How do you install software across a fleet of dozens of Windows machines?
There are solutions, but they are embarrassingly poor in comparison to what's
available on other systems. Salt, Ansible, et al have added half-hearted
Windows support over the years, but it's pretty shallow. SCCM is a massive can
of worms and very easy to FUBAR.

MS's mental model of "update systems by performing clicks 1, 2, 3, and 4" is
just fundamentally limited, as compared to the text-based *nix model. Even MS
has been forced to come to terms with it, which is why they're finally adding
real pty support, etc.

------
sytelus
It’s just great to see pg talking and his little bites of wisdom always had
been worth the time. Two specific things that popped out:

\- He mentions that people who have worked in some companies for 20 years
could not be good founders because good founders wouldn’t be able to stand
these companies for 20 years.

\- pg has often said founders must be nice people but then the host says he
doesn’t think young Steve Jobs would get funded today at YC because YC
specifically filters out such founders.

~~~
HiroshiSan
I'm willing to bet that were he not funded his doggedness would prevail.

See the joke about determination and trump (somewhere in the video)

------
kapad
Was Geoff adequately prepared to host? I watched a few minutes and his
introduction was pathetic. As was his setting of the agenda(which he didn't do
any of). Were his discussion points later on good? If they were, I'll go back
and watch the rest of this. Otherwise half of the video time (when Geoff is
speaking) seems a waste to me. ;)

~~~
dziungles
It was even worse later on. He couldn't even formulate the questions and was
constantly interrupting.

~~~
kapad
Thanks.. I'm skipping everything post 2:02 then :)

------
manigandham
They really needed a script to follow to make it more focused, and the
questions were... not great. Some good advice though still, especially about
truly listening to users and launching asap, probably the single biggest thing
that startups have trouble with.

~~~
tim333
Maybe they could do another talk with a list of new points. I've missed having
PGs thoughts and feel there's more good stuff there.

~~~
jek0
I believe the issue it that many questions are too directive: I want you to
say "blah blah blah", please say "blah blah blah".

So yes, if the moderator just had a list of open questions, it would probably
have worked better.

------
pmoriarty
Could someone please write a synopsis of this?

~~~
anoncoward111
How much are you all willing to bid? I'll do it for $10. That's cheaper than
any AI on the market.

~~~
whitepoplar
Startup idea: "Summarize it for me" \- Upload any document/video/url and pay
$x for the cliffsnotes.

~~~
whitepoplar
For popular, public content, you could split the price amongst many buyers,
like Kickstarter.

~~~
yesenadam
I wish I could do this with subtitles! I hate waiting years for subtitles to
TV series and obscure movies to become available. Ones in European languages
mostly e.g. _Cordon_ season 2 has been out for years, no English subs
available. Latest season of _Rita_ , out for a year, no English subs. The
Colombian _Ugly Betty_ , impossible to find many years later. I waited a
couple of years for the latest season of _Engrenages_ etc.

Maybe there could be a fixed priced online, which you could contribute
towards. I won't pay for movies/tv now, but I'd sure pay for subtitles!
Divided between many people, it wouldn't cost much. Not sure how to ensure
high quality subs.

(I contributed to doing subs on viki years ago, which seemed like a good
thing, but it disappeared, taking all the subtitles with it.)

~~~
dewey
That already exists in a more private form, on sites specialized in smaller
movies there’s usually a “subtitle pot” where people can donate their points /
upload credit and the person who does the subtitles then receives that bounty
once work is done. Usually they leak out to the rest of the internet pretty
quickly after that.

~~~
yesenadam
Oh, I had't heard of that. I haven't consulted my friend Google yet, but could
you name some of those sites? Thanks.

~~~
dewey
That's one of them: [https://nationalpost.com/entertainment/weekend-
post/karagarg...](https://nationalpost.com/entertainment/weekend-
post/karagarga-and-the-vulnerability-of-obscure-films)

~~~
yesenadam
Thanks! Hmm does sound a bit inaccessible though, and for obscure classics,
not really what I had in mind: "Karagarga is a members-only torrent tracker.
That is to say it is a file-sharing archive closed to the public and
accessible by exclusive invitation alone. These coveted invitations are given
out to only the highest ranked users(VIP and Uploaders)."

------
peteforde
It's bothering me that Geoff introduced Paul as "the founder" and Paul just
kind of went with it. It was a small moment but these sorts of details matter
because they can contribute to unintended historical revisionism.

A YouTube annotation overlay might be appreciated by the other founders.

~~~
sulam
FWIW pg is clear here that YC had 4 founders:
[http://www.paulgraham.com/jessica.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/jessica.html)

~~~
0xFFFF0000
still doesn't change what happened in the youtube video - just to be clear

~~~
tomhoward
PG has written very candidly of being uncomfortable speaking publicly [1].

As an uncomfortable public speaker myself, when I've been in that situation of
being introduced at the beginning of a Q&A session, my mind is mostly occupied
with mildly anxious thoughts about how I'm going to get through the talk
without freezing up or saying something stupid. I'm not paying close attention
to what the host is saying.

It's worth considering that one of the reasons PG stepped away from being
president of YC seemed to be that he got sick of having the minutiae of his
words and actions scrutinised and presumed to be motivated by malice. There's
a reason his preferred method of public communication is long-form essays.

As the parent to your comment pointed out, he's been at pains to credit his
co-founders in the past, and shows no signs of having an ego-driven need to be
known as the sole founder of YC.

Maybe give the guy a break?

[1]
[http://www.paulgraham.com/speak.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/speak.html)

~~~
awucs
I didn't listen to the whole thing nor do I care about any one individual
thing, but they did talk about the co-founders as well from what I saw.

That said, other than that I disagree with you. If someone wants to have their
opinions taken seriously they have take other people's opinions seriously as
well and can't get angry as soon as people disagree.

Personally I think many of his essays aren't very good, but there just isn't
any practical way to discuss them. And frankly I don't think people are really
that interested in doing that either.

~~~
tomhoward
I don't think there's been any "getting angry as soon as people disagree" \-
he's substantially edited essays in response to critiques. It's pedantry and
the presumption of malice that were probably the hard things to deal with, and
he just realised that his time and energy would be better spent being an
attentive father and partner. Good for him.

~~~
awucs
I disagree. I think his way of having a debate is very dysfunctional. Many of
his essays makes themselves hard to argue with rhetorically. He doesn't leave
much room in the text itself nor in the medium for people to share their own
opinion about it. And when people despite that still do write e.g. blog posts
his response isn't to their argument, but that they have misunderstood what he
meant. The way to make pedantry meaningless is to have a substantial debate. I
also think there is as much presumption of malice on his part as anyone else.
You can even find that in many of his essays where he talks about other people
either being with or against him. I could find you some examples where I think
he did an especially bad job, but what is the point? If you like his essays do
that, but base that on substance and not some sort of universal truth on
Hacker News.

------
Separo
I feel that PG needs to make a concerted effort to use "uhm" less. It
negatively affects his ability to eloquently communicate an idea.

~~~
hristov
As I mentioned elsewhere, the use "umms" is only because he tries to talk off
the cuff. This makes his talks much more interesting.

Most of the smooth talkers you see on tv and youtube have basically learned
what they are going to say. They sound slicker, but eventually what they do
say is less interesting because it has been pre-learned and thus pre-filtered.

This is a general problem with Television and popular culture nowadays. If you
look at old tv talk shows you can see real spontaneity, but this is mostly
absent from modern tv. Of course, the other side of the coin is that on modern
TV interviewers and interviewees are much smoother and more self assured, as
they already know what they are going to say.

I really hope that people do not get spoiled by this pre-learned smoothness of
presentation as to fail to appreciate actual spontaneous interviews and
conversations.

~~~
Separo
It's ridiculous to say that to speak off-the-cuff you need to use "umm" or
another filler word incessantly. Go to any good, spontaneous, unrehearsed
conversation anywhere on the internet and you will see how much time was
wasted trying to construct this argument.

------
ransom1538
I love PG but listening to his advice on startups always felt like discovering
the steps to create a nuclear bomb.

Step 1) collect seven pounds of weapons grade plutonium

Step 1 of a great startup is an amazing idea. Unless you have step one I think
the advice is pretty non applicable. Sure, I get the whole camp “ideas are a
dime a dozen”, but, a bad idea can fall apart with millions of VC ran by MIT
grads and an amazing idea can come to life with a few hundred bucks with a
high school kid.

~~~
sampl
It’s better than saying “you can build a nuclear bomb if you just wish it hard
enough”.

> a bad idea can fall apart with millions of VC ran by MIT grads and an
> amazing idea can come to life with a few hundred bucks with a high school
> kid.

This is a actually really wonderful thing!

Unless you’re an MIT grad with no ideas about how to help customers hoping you
could cash in by riding solely on your credentials I guess.

