zlacker

[return to "How to Build the Future with Sam Altman"]
1. flyosi+ib[view] [source] 2016-09-27 19:24:38
>>sandsl+(OP)
I'm sure this will get downvoted into oblivion, but why should I or other engineers/entrepreneurs look at Sam Altman as a massive startup success story when his lone startup Loopt never really achieved product-market fit, and ended up in a firesale?

Across 5 funding rounds, Crunchbase lists Loopt as having raised $39 million and then was acquired (acqui-hired?) for $43 million. He didn't create any multiples of value for his investors. Loopt wasn't a breakout hit like so many other YC startups have been. It was certainly one of the first interesting location-based apps in the App Store, but soon was surrounded by other location-based apps and never really appeared to surface and gain traction.

Obviously Sam runs YC now and has dramatically improved it, but in the lens of being an entrepreneur, isn't he still essentially unproven, and not a success story in the startup world?

◧◩
2. tptace+Hd[view] [source] 2016-09-27 19:43:17
>>flyosi+ib
By top 10 YC startup standards, Paul Graham's Viaweb success isn't all that interesting either.

But, of course: if the model they're building with YC works, this is the outcome you'd expect. YC wouldn't be very interesting if its outcomes were capped to Viaweb's and Loopt's.

◧◩◪
3. CptJam+bi[view] [source] 2016-09-27 20:14:23
>>tptace+Hd
Paul Graham started Y Combinator, which is a company.

Paul Graham was a borderline founder of Reddit, as well.

◧◩◪◨
4. tptace+pw[view] [source] 2016-09-27 22:03:56
>>CptJam+bi
Sam operates YC, which is a company. If the argument is that he lacks operational experience, and YC is a company, you've defeated your own argument.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. nostra+oC[view] [source] 2016-09-27 22:59:24
>>tptace+pw
As I read the grandparent, his argument is that YC's business is teaching you how to start a company, not operate one. Thus, it's relevant to prospective customers whether its leaders have experience starting successful companies, not just starting unsuccessful ones or operating successful ones. Eric Schmidt may be one of the best CEOs ever, but if your goal is to start the next Google, you're probably a lot more interested in what Larry Page has to say.

Not saying I agree, BTW - I think that binary startup success has a large skill factor, but the magnitude of that success is largely luck, and that good luck can mask bad practices to a large extent. So in my view, people with relatively minor startup successes like Sam Altman, Paul Buchheit, or Michael Siebel might actually be better coaches than knock-it-out-of-the-park successes like Larry Page, Mark Cuban, or Notch. But don't misrepresent the argument: operational experience running an existing business is very different from experience founding one.

[go to top]