Or maybe the reason we don't have enough entrepreneurs is that we've convinced everyone that they need to have some type of eureka moment where they come up with the next greatest idea.
I think YC is making a statement here: talk is cheap and ideas are cheap, but people are really expensive. If you want a solid company, the people matter more than the idea, because the idea will change over time anyway.
I know a lot of people who think that they have to have a "stroke of genius" where they think of something innovative before they can be a successful entrepreneur, when a lot of the most successful companies really did reinvent the wheel (they just did it better!).
The idea for a company is an artificial barrier to becoming an entrepreneur, because the idea isn't nearly as relevant as the execution (It's simple: what makes Apple or Google special, or more specifically, what made them special when they were starting out?). It almost always boils down to their approach to a problem instead of just the problem they were trying to solve.
> The idea for a company is an artificial barrier to becoming an entrepreneur
Oh really? How many successful entrepreneurs have you heard of without ideas, just totally empty heads and whole bunch of hustle? Do they just hack away at nothing? Do they hustle without any purpose at all? And how many companies have you heard of without any ideas behind them? Don't be silly.. of course ideas matter. YC recognizes that individuals that work hard can come up with great ideas. Of course an entrepreneur must have an idea before they start working on something. Can that idea fail miserably? Sure, but great entrepreneurs will keep going. The failed idea/company will be ripped into bits, and the good parts will be funneled into a new idea. Over and over and over again. YC is banking on their ability to identify people who can come up with ideas and execute them.
> It's simple: what makes Apple or Google special, or more specifically, what made them special when they were starting out? It almost always boils down to their approach to a problem instead of just the problem they were trying to solve.
An "approach to a problem"? Oh, you mean an... idea for a solution to a problem? Yeah. Ideas matter.
This misleading idea is perpetuated by PR departments, who like to make up bogus creation myths. Example:
*A former bakery owner and professional bicyclist, he was choking down PowerBars
for energy in the middle of a daylong 175-mile ride. "I couldn't make the last
one go down, and that's when I had an epiphany -- make a product that actually
tasted good."*
-- Gary Erickson, founder and CEO of Clif Bar.
Quoted in Fortune Small Business, October 2003.
> talk is cheap and ideas are cheap, but people are really expensive [...] because the idea will change over time anyway.
I largely agree with this sentiment in general. However, all ideas are not created equal. Most successful companies seem to make 2nd order corrections and refinements to their ideas, but not change them all that much. Case in point, facebook hasn't changed that much in terms of vision and what it provides for its users since it started. Same for google, apple, airbnb, heroku, dropbox, reddit, mint, basecamp, ...
[i don't mean to say that those are the same type of success, just illustrating that what i said applies to a lot of very different types of successes]
> (It's simple: what makes Apple or Google special, or more specifically, what made them special when they were starting out?).
A couple guys had an idea for a cheap computer and a great search engine, respectively. And they executed it well. You're kidding yourself if you think the Steves sat around and said, "what is it we should do with our lives? We need an idea." They knew what they wanted to do, and did it, and continued to believe in it (in Steve Jobs's case, for his entire life).
It was their passion for the ideas that determined how successful their respective companies were, perhaps combined with traits about themselves. Do you think Apple will ever be as successful without Jobs's dedication? Maybe successful, but not innovative, and doomed to eventually run out of steam. Google is already failing because they are losing focus on the idea that made them great.
I don't think a company can be truly successful unless the people founding it truly believe that the idea will change the world (and how can you truly believe in an idea that you haven't discovered yet, and that you have to go to an incubator to work on?). Of course, this is meaningless in today's perceived-value bubble, which might be why Y Combinator is trying it.
In the end, and I hope I'm wrong, I suspect this will draw out people who are just looking for a cash-out vehicle. "I heard there was money to be made in Silicon Valley, but I don't know what company to start. Help me find an idea!"
lol "we don't have enough entreprenuers?" What does "enough" mean? Looks to me like we've got thousands of kids trying to make the FaceTube.ly+ 3.0, which is more than enough for me, personally.
Meanwhile, cancer is uncured, the moon is lonely, etc.
"If you want a solid company, the people matter more than the idea, because the idea will change over time anyway."
So how exactly does that idea change? In itself? Like magically? Or is it perhaps so that somebody needs to come up with that idea? So if there's nobody in your company who can come up with an idea then what? Because in the beginning Uncle Paul gave to you an idea. Because you where so dumb brick that you couldn't come up with anything while applying to the YC. So now you are implementing it at it does not work out, ideas change, you know. So you pick up the phone and call Uncle Paul in need of a new idea? To pivot in the billion dollar business. Really? But hey, first, to come up with and idea to call Uncle Paul for a new bllion dollar idea you need an idea that the current idea does not work and you need an idea to call Uncle Paul. Now what?
Some people become entrepreneurs because they don't really have a choice. I'm just not suited to general employment, so I started a search engine company (sold to Altavista), a high performance networking company (sold to Citrix), and Quantcast.
In each case, I sat down and said "I wonder what kind of company I should start", and followed a methodical process.
I didnt really have a choice. I would have been miserable if I'd stayed as an engineer at Apple.
Just curious, what methodical process did you follow? Did you first test the market using tactics similar to the lean startup approach? Thanks for your advice.
Defines me incredibly well. I either rise to a critical position within an organization within ~18 months or I wind up leaving ~24 months because I feel like I've added all the value I can.
Even PG said that they have no idea whether or not this is going to work, or if it's a good idea. But they were willing to give it a shot, which is the most interesting part of this whole thing, since they have the guts to try.
Erm, money to try, rather than guts to try, and we can all benefit from sitting back and watching to see if it works. It looks likes an interesting experiment.
This is a classic case of someone who doesn't realize that their own situation is not everyone's situation. Not everyone comes to the valley as a cofounder of a company that becomes a $100B+ phenomena. Here's a clue: they didn't invest in Asan because of you - but because of Facebook.
I wonder what Dustin would have to say in an alternate universe where he was just another Harvard CS grad.
What YC is doing is opening up entrepreneurship to a whole new group of people - who might be just as competent as you - but don't want to work for you.
Also, I think what type of 'impact' I make is something I'll decide for myself. Working for your companies is not what I think is the best thing to do with my 1 and only life.
I think "no idea" is a poor choice of language for the YCombinator application in my opinion. The first bit of the introduction was much better: > We're going to have a separate application track for groups that don't have AN idea yet.
If this was all they said it wouldn't take much clarification to show another (more likely) meaning... you [your team] does in fact have ideas, but none of them are the one. You have a demonstrated ability to see problems and invent creative solutions, but in this case you're looking to find the problem that can best use your talents– YC being one of the best places to do that.
I think the question is how many people actually got in from no-idea.
If a bunch of people submitted apps, thought about entrepreneurship, and 5-10 groups or individuals got interviews, thought more about entrepreneurship, and some (or none) got into YC, I don't see how this really changes things.
In fact, I think we'd all win from 10-18 year olds learning more about entrepreneurship (at least as an option), so they could steer their careers toward it -- by working on independent projects, by working for great companies (like facebook) where they can learn and meet cofounders, etc.
I agree that working for a company like Facebook is probably a better purely-financial decision than starting a startup, for a lot of of people, but I'd rather do a startup anyway.
To me, the "no idea" idea is easy to laugh at. That means it's either absurd, or brilliant. Anyone who tells you they know which of the two is guessing. In fact, I'd say anyone who makes bold claims about the result of YC's experiment is being very "un-entrepreneur"-like since an entrepreneur knows better than to write off ideas that seem ridiculous.
Ironically enough, this meta-idea might be so revolutionary that the ideas that come out of it from the entrepreneurs (since they will be forming in a different environment) could turn out to be dramatically more impactful than if left to come up with their idea on their own.
People who decide first that they want to be an entrepreneur and then go looking for an idea are getting it the wrong way around
I disagree. These kinds of "hey, let's start a business" conversations happen all the time among would-be entrepreneurs long before they've come up with an idea. YC's "no idea" round is simply taking what would have been a discussion over drinks with friends, or in a dorm room full of CS majors before applying and moving it later, so it happens under supervision.
Absolutely. My friend and I wanted to quit & run a business. We kept discussing about different ideas over a period of time and then just decided to quit & get started.
Looking back, it was so naive to have written a few business plans, waiting for that 'unique' idea to come up.
I would say, talk to 50 folks (potential customers) about a problem. See if they acknowledge the pain and if they would pay for it to be solved. Try to put a number to solve that problem - how much would it cost (direct or indirect) them without that solution and just build it.
Does not matter whether competitors out there are already building it. Every business would take its own course based on customer feedback and no two businesses' vision will be the same over the years.
When speaking at Y Combinator's Startup School, Mark Zuckerberg made it clear that some people can do a great service for the world, even if their only motive is to "be an entrepreneur".
Zuckerberg said that he created Facebook because he felt like it needed to exist, but that he had immense respect for Jeff Bezos, even though Bezos' motivation for being in business was of a different nature than his own.
A company without an idea sounds as bad as mortgage without a downpayment.
I think that this will be quoted in the future to indicate when bubble became obvious. I mean, come on, how much money must be flying around there for free, if they are willing to fund a band of 18 year olds who don't even know what they want.
The original idea is probably the least important thing about most startups. There are cases where the founders have been working in a domain for many years and start a company with a very specific pain point in mind. Those are the exceptions.
Most successful founders have an initial idea, talk to potential customers, and find a related and sometimes completely unrelated thing that people want more and/or that excites them more.
It may yet turn out that having an idea is an indicator of something that is currently unknown but important, and that cannot be filtered for otherwise. If this happens, it will be apparent to YC soon. Meanwhile they are innovating, taking risks, and trying new things - which is exactly what I would expect from a group of people teaching others how to build better startups.
I think it really depends. If YC makes it a point to select only ex-entrepreneurs who have proven themselves, it could be a good thing. But if they start letting anyone who has good background into this, Dustin is absolutely right.
I think there are two competing schools of thought and neither is completely right or wrong.
One believes that an entrepreneur needs to serve a cause and do something to better the world and success will come proportionally to how much they have enriched others' lives.
The other believes that an entrepreneur just needs to make a boatload of cash.
There are countless examples of successful entrepreneurs that pursued both routes, but I do believe that those in one camp probably wouldn't do well if they tried the other. Some people are just very smart, and sometimes smarts, hard work, and some luck is all you need.
A largely unsuccessful entrepreneur's 2 cents: The idea is what you fight for. Even if you run out of money, you still believe in the idea to keep moving and eventually (maybe) succeed. The idea is your child, she may grow and become a musician instead of doctor that you wanted, but she is still your child. I am not sure how that applies when "no idea" teams just take duty of someone else's child.
I think DM kind of missed the point of what YC is doing here.
Their argument is not that smart people can just make anything work, but that smart people who have the desire to change things in the world for the better almost always have an idea lingering in their head.
They just need help finding out what that idea is and YC finds they are good at helping people do that.
Think about how many people left good companies for bad ideas and pivoted to something else.
With Dustin's point of view they would have been stupid for leaving said big company in the first place, but alot of times the struggles after leaving the security blanket are what make the greatest ideas come to life.
I hope YC continues to be transparent with the results of this experiment, I think it could prove to be even better for the valley as it gives people who are truly qualified the confidence to do something without feeling like they are going at it alone.
In my experience some of the most risk-averse people who think the least of themselves are some of the smartest people I know.
I'd be willing to bet I'm not the only one who sees that pattern.
Is this guy for real? "More impact"? Did he really say that?
Facebook has to be the creepiest company in the history of business. It really shouldn't even be a company.
It's just a website that an enormous number of people have decided to simultaneous use, thereby creating connections. (Which is a great thing, but I would not give Mark Zuckerberg or this guy any more credit than any other web developer. They were lucky, not brilliant.) People could choose any website to make such connections. And there are hundreds of thousands of kids who could create such a site. Zuckerberg himself had to take the FB idea from someone else- his HotOrNOt clone (FaceMash) or filesharing application (WireHog) would never have made it- he did not even have a solid idea. If this kid had his way, he'd ensure they were all his under his employ. And all their ideas would be property of FB. Nice try.
To say that the "No Idea" round is bad for Silicon Valley is to give an overly simplistic view of the "entrepreneur."
However, the interesting thing here may not be one of whether an idea is necessary to initially catalyze a great company... or not. That seems like a chicken or the egg kind of question. (Do great companies breed great ideas or do great ideas breed great companies?)
Instead, I think the focus on the individual may be the most pertinent from this article. For some, those who are great at building within a company, being engineer #100 at Facebook is perhaps the greatest place of impact that person could have. Of course the converse can be true as well, which is the story we're all too used to. The underlying assumption is that a person's greatest placement is proportional to her natural inclination and disposition, and I'm inclined to agree.
[+] [-] shantanubala|14 years ago|reply
I think YC is making a statement here: talk is cheap and ideas are cheap, but people are really expensive. If you want a solid company, the people matter more than the idea, because the idea will change over time anyway.
I know a lot of people who think that they have to have a "stroke of genius" where they think of something innovative before they can be a successful entrepreneur, when a lot of the most successful companies really did reinvent the wheel (they just did it better!).
The idea for a company is an artificial barrier to becoming an entrepreneur, because the idea isn't nearly as relevant as the execution (It's simple: what makes Apple or Google special, or more specifically, what made them special when they were starting out?). It almost always boils down to their approach to a problem instead of just the problem they were trying to solve.
[+] [-] guynamedloren|14 years ago|reply
Oh really? How many successful entrepreneurs have you heard of without ideas, just totally empty heads and whole bunch of hustle? Do they just hack away at nothing? Do they hustle without any purpose at all? And how many companies have you heard of without any ideas behind them? Don't be silly.. of course ideas matter. YC recognizes that individuals that work hard can come up with great ideas. Of course an entrepreneur must have an idea before they start working on something. Can that idea fail miserably? Sure, but great entrepreneurs will keep going. The failed idea/company will be ripped into bits, and the good parts will be funneled into a new idea. Over and over and over again. YC is banking on their ability to identify people who can come up with ideas and execute them.
> It's simple: what makes Apple or Google special, or more specifically, what made them special when they were starting out? It almost always boils down to their approach to a problem instead of just the problem they were trying to solve.
An "approach to a problem"? Oh, you mean an... idea for a solution to a problem? Yeah. Ideas matter.
[+] [-] tlb|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|14 years ago|reply
This is when I decided this must be a parody.
[+] [-] rguzman|14 years ago|reply
I largely agree with this sentiment in general. However, all ideas are not created equal. Most successful companies seem to make 2nd order corrections and refinements to their ideas, but not change them all that much. Case in point, facebook hasn't changed that much in terms of vision and what it provides for its users since it started. Same for google, apple, airbnb, heroku, dropbox, reddit, mint, basecamp, ...
[i don't mean to say that those are the same type of success, just illustrating that what i said applies to a lot of very different types of successes]
[+] [-] _pius|14 years ago|reply
We don't have enough entrepreneurs?
[+] [-] jsprinkles|14 years ago|reply
A couple guys had an idea for a cheap computer and a great search engine, respectively. And they executed it well. You're kidding yourself if you think the Steves sat around and said, "what is it we should do with our lives? We need an idea." They knew what they wanted to do, and did it, and continued to believe in it (in Steve Jobs's case, for his entire life).
It was their passion for the ideas that determined how successful their respective companies were, perhaps combined with traits about themselves. Do you think Apple will ever be as successful without Jobs's dedication? Maybe successful, but not innovative, and doomed to eventually run out of steam. Google is already failing because they are losing focus on the idea that made them great.
I don't think a company can be truly successful unless the people founding it truly believe that the idea will change the world (and how can you truly believe in an idea that you haven't discovered yet, and that you have to go to an incubator to work on?). Of course, this is meaningless in today's perceived-value bubble, which might be why Y Combinator is trying it.
In the end, and I hope I'm wrong, I suspect this will draw out people who are just looking for a cash-out vehicle. "I heard there was money to be made in Silicon Valley, but I don't know what company to start. Help me find an idea!"
[+] [-] skerrit_bwoy|14 years ago|reply
Meanwhile, cancer is uncured, the moon is lonely, etc.
[+] [-] atirip|14 years ago|reply
So how exactly does that idea change? In itself? Like magically? Or is it perhaps so that somebody needs to come up with that idea? So if there's nobody in your company who can come up with an idea then what? Because in the beginning Uncle Paul gave to you an idea. Because you where so dumb brick that you couldn't come up with anything while applying to the YC. So now you are implementing it at it does not work out, ideas change, you know. So you pick up the phone and call Uncle Paul in need of a new idea? To pivot in the billion dollar business. Really? But hey, first, to come up with and idea to call Uncle Paul for a new bllion dollar idea you need an idea that the current idea does not work and you need an idea to call Uncle Paul. Now what?
[+] [-] paulsutter|14 years ago|reply
In each case, I sat down and said "I wonder what kind of company I should start", and followed a methodical process.
I didnt really have a choice. I would have been miserable if I'd stayed as an engineer at Apple.
[+] [-] vincentchan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] debacle|14 years ago|reply
> I'm just not suited to general employment
Defines me incredibly well. I either rise to a critical position within an organization within ~18 months or I wind up leaving ~24 months because I feel like I've added all the value I can.
[+] [-] rythie|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steve8918|14 years ago|reply
If it doesn't work out, then no harm, no foul.
[+] [-] sixQuarks|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hessenwolf|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] capred|14 years ago|reply
I wonder what Dustin would have to say in an alternate universe where he was just another Harvard CS grad.
What YC is doing is opening up entrepreneurship to a whole new group of people - who might be just as competent as you - but don't want to work for you.
Also, I think what type of 'impact' I make is something I'll decide for myself. Working for your companies is not what I think is the best thing to do with my 1 and only life.
[+] [-] evoxed|14 years ago|reply
If this was all they said it wouldn't take much clarification to show another (more likely) meaning... you [your team] does in fact have ideas, but none of them are the one. You have a demonstrated ability to see problems and invent creative solutions, but in this case you're looking to find the problem that can best use your talents– YC being one of the best places to do that.
[+] [-] rdl|14 years ago|reply
If a bunch of people submitted apps, thought about entrepreneurship, and 5-10 groups or individuals got interviews, thought more about entrepreneurship, and some (or none) got into YC, I don't see how this really changes things.
In fact, I think we'd all win from 10-18 year olds learning more about entrepreneurship (at least as an option), so they could steer their careers toward it -- by working on independent projects, by working for great companies (like facebook) where they can learn and meet cofounders, etc.
I agree that working for a company like Facebook is probably a better purely-financial decision than starting a startup, for a lot of of people, but I'd rather do a startup anyway.
[+] [-] gfodor|14 years ago|reply
Ironically enough, this meta-idea might be so revolutionary that the ideas that come out of it from the entrepreneurs (since they will be forming in a different environment) could turn out to be dramatically more impactful than if left to come up with their idea on their own.
[+] [-] coopdog|14 years ago|reply
At it's best there's a brilliance to it. What's your idea?
"Does it really matter? Throw me something horrible and I'll still execute flawlessly"
At it's worst: I can't think of anything... tell me what to do. Obviously these people get filtered out
[+] [-] tlb|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] byoung2|14 years ago|reply
I disagree. These kinds of "hey, let's start a business" conversations happen all the time among would-be entrepreneurs long before they've come up with an idea. YC's "no idea" round is simply taking what would have been a discussion over drinks with friends, or in a dorm room full of CS majors before applying and moving it later, so it happens under supervision.
[+] [-] skrish|14 years ago|reply
Looking back, it was so naive to have written a few business plans, waiting for that 'unique' idea to come up.
I would say, talk to 50 folks (potential customers) about a problem. See if they acknowledge the pain and if they would pay for it to be solved. Try to put a number to solve that problem - how much would it cost (direct or indirect) them without that solution and just build it.
Does not matter whether competitors out there are already building it. Every business would take its own course based on customer feedback and no two businesses' vision will be the same over the years.
[+] [-] pinchyfingers|14 years ago|reply
Zuckerberg said that he created Facebook because he felt like it needed to exist, but that he had immense respect for Jeff Bezos, even though Bezos' motivation for being in business was of a different nature than his own.
[+] [-] giftedbygod|14 years ago|reply
I think that this will be quoted in the future to indicate when bubble became obvious. I mean, come on, how much money must be flying around there for free, if they are willing to fund a band of 18 year olds who don't even know what they want.
[+] [-] ajju|14 years ago|reply
Most successful founders have an initial idea, talk to potential customers, and find a related and sometimes completely unrelated thing that people want more and/or that excites them more.
It may yet turn out that having an idea is an indicator of something that is currently unknown but important, and that cannot be filtered for otherwise. If this happens, it will be apparent to YC soon. Meanwhile they are innovating, taking risks, and trying new things - which is exactly what I would expect from a group of people teaching others how to build better startups.
[+] [-] collegeportalme|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fredsters_s|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkrich|14 years ago|reply
One believes that an entrepreneur needs to serve a cause and do something to better the world and success will come proportionally to how much they have enriched others' lives.
The other believes that an entrepreneur just needs to make a boatload of cash.
There are countless examples of successful entrepreneurs that pursued both routes, but I do believe that those in one camp probably wouldn't do well if they tried the other. Some people are just very smart, and sometimes smarts, hard work, and some luck is all you need.
[+] [-] prostoalex|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brainless|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netmau5|14 years ago|reply
There are more paths than your path Mr. Moskovitz.
[+] [-] zbruhnke|14 years ago|reply
Their argument is not that smart people can just make anything work, but that smart people who have the desire to change things in the world for the better almost always have an idea lingering in their head.
They just need help finding out what that idea is and YC finds they are good at helping people do that.
Think about how many people left good companies for bad ideas and pivoted to something else.
With Dustin's point of view they would have been stupid for leaving said big company in the first place, but alot of times the struggles after leaving the security blanket are what make the greatest ideas come to life.
I hope YC continues to be transparent with the results of this experiment, I think it could prove to be even better for the valley as it gives people who are truly qualified the confidence to do something without feeling like they are going at it alone.
In my experience some of the most risk-averse people who think the least of themselves are some of the smartest people I know.
I'd be willing to bet I'm not the only one who sees that pattern.
[+] [-] areyoukiddingme|14 years ago|reply
Facebook has to be the creepiest company in the history of business. It really shouldn't even be a company.
It's just a website that an enormous number of people have decided to simultaneous use, thereby creating connections. (Which is a great thing, but I would not give Mark Zuckerberg or this guy any more credit than any other web developer. They were lucky, not brilliant.) People could choose any website to make such connections. And there are hundreds of thousands of kids who could create such a site. Zuckerberg himself had to take the FB idea from someone else- his HotOrNOt clone (FaceMash) or filesharing application (WireHog) would never have made it- he did not even have a solid idea. If this kid had his way, he'd ensure they were all his under his employ. And all their ideas would be property of FB. Nice try.
[+] [-] jeffpersonified|14 years ago|reply
However, the interesting thing here may not be one of whether an idea is necessary to initially catalyze a great company... or not. That seems like a chicken or the egg kind of question. (Do great companies breed great ideas or do great ideas breed great companies?)
Instead, I think the focus on the individual may be the most pertinent from this article. For some, those who are great at building within a company, being engineer #100 at Facebook is perhaps the greatest place of impact that person could have. Of course the converse can be true as well, which is the story we're all too used to. The underlying assumption is that a person's greatest placement is proportional to her natural inclination and disposition, and I'm inclined to agree.