Y Combinator’s “No Idea” Round Isn’t a Bad Idea, It’s Awesome(viniciusvacanti.com) |
Y Combinator’s “No Idea” Round Isn’t a Bad Idea, It’s Awesome(viniciusvacanti.com) |
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.
From what I've heard, ad hoc teams already happen in the YC program for various reasons. This is not a completely untested hypothesis.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
"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
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
.... 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 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.
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.
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.
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.