Honestly, it's not really a checklist. PG enumerates some of the most important qualities in an interview. There was content in the interview that's rather difficult to express in writing, particularly the parts about friends sticking together and founder-groups with no apparent leader.
"No apparent leader" is easy to say, but during the video PG describes his observations of that leadership vacancy in a number of different ways. You can intuitively understand what sort of leadership he's talking about, in a way that "we don't like not knowing who to address a question to" doesn't really convey. (ie, it's nothing about the artist not wearing a "hi I'm the artist" nametag.) And it doesn't have to be a super-charismatic visionary who also knows everything, just someone who is more assertive and capable of driving the others.
Sure, but it's nothing that we haven't heard before. Every startup faces moments of uncertainty and the feeling of impending doom, and founders that know each other are more likely to stick through hard times due to the pair bond. See, if the only thing holding two people together is the potential success of the startup, they're more likely to jump ship when the going gets tough. If the founders are friends, they'll weather the storm out of sake of the friendship, and have greater chance of getting lucky.
So...
PM me if you are interested in working on a side project together and nurturing a friendship based on shared values.
hmm...
I don't think as an entrepreneur we should seek to optimize these metrics. These rules are ideal for Paul since they reduces his risk for investing, which is necessary as a prudent investor. Y-Combinator would be over the moon if 6 out of ten start-ups were successful. If you were one of those 4 who didn't make it, it would be devastating for you.
Ultimately as the entrepreneur your rules should be gear towards gaining traction. Think about it, you would be over the moon if 6 out of 10 persons sign-up. Gaining customers is your way of reducing risk. Concoct your rules for reducing your risk. I think Eric Reis, Steve Blank and the lean start-up movement are doing a great job at this.
So my advice is don't try to focus on meeting this check list but focus on obtaining traction. Oddly enough, all investors love traction.
This isn't my entire checklist. The interview wasn't even about checklists. They just stuck that word in the title to get traffic. If you describe something as a checklist, then everyone wants to see what it is to see if they're missing anything. Much like the list-of-n-things.
There is actually a really good reason not to start a start-up with friends, you might find that your friendship is the victim of either the success or the failure of your start-up.
So what? You may just discover that your friendship isn't that strong. If it is, it will endure and grow, whether your business succeeds or fails.
I wonder why people are so afraid to put their relationships on trial. An old adage says that you should not trust a friend of yours until you have tested it.
Unfortunately I have to concur with this from personal experience. However saying that it doesn't seem to have stopped me from trying again. That is until I run out of friends :)
I think he misinterpreted the Twitter question. She seemed to be asking whether he would reject a group with an idea as compelling as Twitter if the founders didn't have the right personalities.
"an idea as compelling as Twitter" - proof that something is a great idea like Twitter only becomes obvious in retrospect. If you heard a description of Twitter just before it launched, you probably wouldn't think it would work (or wouldn't know one way or the other). Hence the importance of the founding team and how well they execute the idea.
I founded a startup that was featured by the WSJ all by myself and have gone on to work on a new project which has some traction. I applied to YC with another idea and didn't "make the cut." I personally take that to be a greater challenge to succeede than any friendship or relationship could obligate me to. PG may have a checklist which works most of the time but I suspect that's the first step toward missing the outliers who define true success. No one's going to take the next Google seriously 'till its too late.
But for someone whose whole job is to find, and invest in, "the next Google", you'd think there could be some sort of recognizable features that a Bayesian classifier could learn as positive weights (as, if there weren't, that person would guess correctly at no greater a rate than chance, and would therefore be replaced by a small shell-script/die roll.) Those recognizable features should then be able to be decomposed into discrete features—which could be written down as a checklist.
To put it another way—there are only two ways to do a job whose output is boolean (invest/don't invest): either algorithmically, or randomly. Any judging algorithm can be approximated by a checklist.
[+] [-] fizx|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgman|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Goladus|15 years ago|reply
"No apparent leader" is easy to say, but during the video PG describes his observations of that leadership vacancy in a number of different ways. You can intuitively understand what sort of leadership he's talking about, in a way that "we don't like not knowing who to address a question to" doesn't really convey. (ie, it's nothing about the artist not wearing a "hi I'm the artist" nametag.) And it doesn't have to be a super-charismatic visionary who also knows everything, just someone who is more assertive and capable of driving the others.
[+] [-] HNer|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Cabal|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alnayyir|15 years ago|reply
Been friends
Worked together for awhile
Don't come together for only the startup
If close friends, stick with it even if things look bad because things eventually get better.
Don't want companies run by committee.
Need clear leadership, don't want unclear sense of who the primary decision maker is. Want to know who they should address a question to.
But not a megalomaniac, just want somebody who steps forward.
Founder power is increasing, investor power waning, probably good because those most knowledgeable getting more power.
Lot cheaper to start a startup these days.
More socially acceptable to start a startup these days.
Conway said a lot of his portfolio companies were in New York these days.
----
I hate watching videos too as interesting as PG is to watch, I took the hit for the rest of ya.
(I read much faster than anyone can possibly speak.)
[+] [-] zackattack|15 years ago|reply
So...
PM me if you are interested in working on a side project together and nurturing a friendship based on shared values.
[+] [-] chegra|15 years ago|reply
Ultimately as the entrepreneur your rules should be gear towards gaining traction. Think about it, you would be over the moon if 6 out of 10 persons sign-up. Gaining customers is your way of reducing risk. Concoct your rules for reducing your risk. I think Eric Reis, Steve Blank and the lean start-up movement are doing a great job at this.
So my advice is don't try to focus on meeting this check list but focus on obtaining traction. Oddly enough, all investors love traction.
[+] [-] pg|15 years ago|reply
This is probably closer to what you want: http://paulgraham.com/13sentences.html
[+] [-] jacquesm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lelele|15 years ago|reply
I wonder why people are so afraid to put their relationships on trial. An old adage says that you should not trust a friend of yours until you have tested it.
[+] [-] draegtun|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sayemm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pg|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sage_joch|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickk|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] herdrick|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielha|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gotttzsche|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gigafemtonano|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derefr|15 years ago|reply
To put it another way—there are only two ways to do a job whose output is boolean (invest/don't invest): either algorithmically, or randomly. Any judging algorithm can be approximated by a checklist.
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]