Paul Graham of Y Combinator fame recently mused on what he sees as seven “Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas” in areas ripe for revolution. Interestingly, Search tops the list, an area which we feel could actually do with a few revolutions to populate the field with a more competitive landscape of players. And we must say, we can’t disagree with the clear, though daunting, opportunities for shake-ups in the other areas identified by Graham.
But what we find perplexing is that Y Combinator’s investment habits, like those of most investor outfits, run directly at odds with Graham’s thesis in this essay: that the biggest opportunities for revolution often sound like the craziest ideas at first. Graham points out the flawed reasoning in investors’ so often shying away from projects trying to pull off these sorts of major revolutions, but Y Combinator itself mostly gravitates toward startups making relatively small, iterative progress on existing idea spaces. And with the numbers game it plays with small investments over many young companies, Y Combinator has the perfect investment model to engage in some serious experimentation. It’s gratifying to hear these kinds of arguments coming from someone as widely listened to and respected as Graham is, but there is no reason for him to be passively voicing them. Respectfully, Paul Graham, it’s time to put your money where your mouth is.
The essay separates the ends from the means. It explicitly suggests not attacking ambitious ideas head-on, but starting with something that looks like a toy. I think that explains the discrepancy you’re seeing.
Well, to be fair, he does say that you need to take a novel (and niche) angle on doing such a thing (not to say your company doesn’t). To secure the investment on any extremely ambitious idea you would also need to be very effective in person; much more so than someone with a less ambitious, more realistic idea.
I think you are wrong.
Criticism is easier than putting in the work on an idea.
He is not passive.
He’s opened the door on some big ideas.
And now, several hundred guys are thinking and toying with those ideas.
Doesn’t seem like Paul’s the problem.
Broaching the ideas creates opportunity.
When someone solves one of these, and they will, I bet he funds it.
He’s done it lots of time.
This won’t be all that different — except in retrospect.
Even with an idea or a tiny viable product, he funds.
That is what he does. Watch.
You say YC “mostly gravitates toward startups making relatively small, iterative progress”. For this round, though, they’re willing to fund people with no particular idea at all. If that’s not putting his money where his mouth is, I don’t know what is.
I think he is just tired of seeing the same shit he has already invested in and wants people to diversify. Given the right opportunity for one of his “Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas”, I guess we will see what he does…
[...] recent essay regarding copyright because it “misses the mark in a big way.” Another article argues that because Paul Graham wrote an essay about “Frighteningly Ambitious Startup [...]