

Monkey-read, monkey-do entrepreneurship - heycarsten
http://ambershah.com/2010/09/monkey-read-monkey-do-entrepreneurship

======
staunch
Her point about thinking for yourself is condescending. She's hardly alone in
believing that she's a critical thinker that evaluates advice objectively.
Everyone thinks that about themselves. No one thinks they're a monkey.

Regarding the post she's replying to, she didn't provide any evidence that
she's succeeded while ignoring the advice of experts.

Her one example (which was 75% of her post) would be more convincing if it
didn't seem like she was rationalizing her preexisting view point. She also
describes that she has someone who is co-founder in all but name, which
weakens the argument further.

I have to admit that I'm uncomfortable with how much of PG's advice I agree
with. There are probably a lot of little things I disagree with, but I can't
think of any big ones. Between the previous thread and this submission I was
hoping to have at least a few nuggets of disagreement to hold on to.
Unfortunately that's not the case.

~~~
jiganti
I don't think it's necessary to _disagree_ with a certain amount of someone's
work- it's more important to be able to explain exactly why you agree with or
don't agree with someone. This is what really prevents you from being the
proverbial sheep.

~~~
staunch
Of course you're right and that is exactly how I feel. The problem is that
it's _uncomfortable_ for me to agree so much with someone. It's very rare as
well. Even with people whose opinion's I respect as highly as PG's there tends
to be a lot to disagree with.

------
amirmc
_> "A company with $200K per year revenue with a single person and no plans to
“exit” would be a failure in YC"_

It might not be what YC is after but I don't think it they'd consider it a
failure either. Am I wrong?

~~~
noodle
yeah, it wouldn't be a YC failure, it would just probably be a company YC
wouldn't invest in. why would a single-person 200k/year profit company need
YC?

edit: this seems to me like she's confused. YC's preferences on companies that
they would like to invest their time and money in doesn't necessarily equal
"the best way" for all entrepreneurs under all situations and circumstances.

~~~
pg
_YC's preferences on companies that they would like to invest their time and
money in doesn't necessarily equal "the best way" for all entrepreneurs under
all situations and circumstances._

That is certainly true. We would never claim otherwise. YC invests in
startups, and only a tiny fraction of the millions of small companies in the
US are startups. Nearly all are service businesses whose prospects for growth
are minimal.

Startup founders are a very small subset of entrepreneurs.

~~~
AmberShah
This is interesting to me. I consider what I have a startup, but what is the
distinction? I'm not sure what about the $200K statement makes me an
entrepreneur and not a startup. I'm assuming we are talking about scalable
tech business, not consulting.

EDIT: Updated for clarity.

~~~
pg
I don't know what you're doing, but consulting is not the only way to have
limited growth prospects. A company could also be making a product for a niche
market (and not be doing it merely as a way to get started engaging with
users). I believe some people call these niche software companies MicroISVs.

~~~
netcan
I think you need to start qualifying 'startup'a little more, particularly when
the topic tends towards hair splitting.

It looks like the definition a lot of people use is one that includes your
startup as a subset.

I find it so frustrating reading through threads like this that get all bogged
down in semantic nitpicking. It also opens a door to a particularly annoying
type of quasi-trolling or baiting. Maybe 'startups that exit' or something

~~~
pg
I've found the best strategy (as with most words) is just to use the word the
way it's used in standard, educated usage.

In standard usage, a startup does not mean any newly created company. It means
a newly created company designed to scale dramatically. Most of the 20 million
businesses in the US are not startups, because they aren't designed to scale.
They're either service businesses or niche product businesses.

------
hammmatt
It is sort of a catch 22 for her to say how silly it is to have a co-founder
when you are young and unproven. If you are capable of doing it yourself, then
yes, of course you should. However, many people who are capable of doing
themselves may not be ready to handle all of the aspects, especially if it is
their first time out.

There are a few lessons that I have taken from browsing HackerNews over the
last year. Two of them come to mind.

The first is that it is not simple to do everything involved in creating a
startup. Even if you know what you are doing. There are factors to hinder
great products and great people, from reaching the consumer.

The second is that there is no shortage of great ideas for startups. The real
bottle neck seems to be the execution of great ideas.

If you are capable of doing it by yourself, but you take on a partner, you do
lose out financially or you could create complications. But no one ever said
it had to be your last startup. You can always take on of the great new ideas
and branch out again.

Even if it is a disaster, you will discover that you can do it alone.

Or the other scenario, you discover that you work well together. Now, you have
have too much brain power, time, energy and money. These resources are
incredibly useful at expanding your startup, starting a second, or just making
life easier.

I like her cynicism about everything she reads. That is just a normal part of
rationality. Even if it is aimed against the mighty Paul Graham. However, I
have to disagree with her assertions. I believe teams are greater than the sum
of their parts, even if team member can do all work alone.

~~~
AmberShah
By the way, I didn't say cofounders are silly, just that I choose not to have
one right now. It's a choice often met with disdain from a certain group of
people: "you will definitely fail". Others have already proven that single
founder can work, the test now is whether I can.

------
chegra
ok... I think she has a point but didn't cut to meat of things(These days
people apply link-bait heavily).

I have notice that people repeat exactly what pg says and nothing else. I
don't have a problem with repeating, but I think they also need to add to what
he says.

I kind of carry around a formula: 95% copy and 5% innovation. Innovation
should be low because it reflects taking a risk that by simply copying would
mitigate. But, Innovation should never be zero as you effectively don't add
anything to the community and become less competitive.

Currently, pg might have a set of belief that he has found empirically to be
true. But if you consider the search for the optimal set of rules for forming
a start-up, I think pg might have reach a local maximum and it is necessary
for start-ups both in YC and out to search this space that defer from pg
current views, so a new higher local maximum can be achieve for the entire
community.(Think Particle Swarm Optimization)

