[HN Gopher] Why to start a startup in a bad economy (2008) ___________________________________________________________________ Why to start a startup in a bad economy (2008) Author : dbrereton Score : 239 points Date : 2023-01-18 17:32 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (paulgraham.com) (TXT) w3m dump (paulgraham.com) | gnicholas wrote: | > _For years I 've been telling founders that the surest route to | success is to be the cockroaches of the corporate world._ | | This has always seemed incompatible with the VC model, which | involves raising a ton of money, putting the company on an 18 | month clock, spending the money so you can hit key milestones, | and then raising even more money when the clock runs out. | | I have heard of a few companies that were on the VC track, raised | money, and stayed frugal. But my impression is that investors | want to see you swing for the fences, which involves spending all | the money they invested, and fast. | | How common is it for startups to buck this trend? | varelse wrote: | [dead] | zachthewf wrote: | The difference is pre versus post PMF. | | When you start your startup, you are by definition pre-PMF. | There is only a weak relationship between what you spend and | what comes out the other side. Once you're post-PMF this | changes and you may need to jack up the spending in order to | grow as quickly as possible. | | Lots of companies screw this up and scale up spending when | they're pre-PMF. In 2021 those companies could keep raising, | but now they're probably going to die. | gnicholas wrote: | Pre-PMF companies need to experiment and nail down their PMF. | So what should they be spending on, and what shouldn't they | be spending on? I assume conference booths fall into the | latter category. Is there anything other than product dev and | design that falls into the former? Where does marketing land, | in order to make sure enough people are in the funnel to be | able to meaningfully experiment and gather data? | wefarrell wrote: | Relationship building is pretty important pre PMF, | especially for industries with larger contracts and longer | sales cycles. | zachthewf wrote: | IMO sales and marketing expenses should be minimal-- | essentially limited to testing different channels to see if | they work. | | I'm sure this depends on the business but I'd say if you | need a lot of marketing spend in order to experiment it's a | sign that you may not be enough of an expert on where to | find your customers and you either need to find a way to | gain that expertise or pivot to an area where you already | have it. | O__________O wrote: | VC care about three things: percentage of ownership, growth, | and a liquidity event. | | If a startup doesn't need the capital to grow, they're not | likely to take on VC funds. If they do, the startup will need | to sell equity, which based on funding round have norms based | on equity given for capital received. If the startup is frugal | with the capital, but still manages to hit growth targets and | reach an acceptable liquidity event for the VC, then any | unspent capital would only add to the valuation of the company. | | Is that common, no, but it does happen; if it does, generally | means founders gave up equity unnecessarily. Regardless, VC | measure ROI on capital invested in the startup not if the | capital they invested was spent by the startup. | dheera wrote: | You can also just not take VC money. There are a couple of ways | to do this: | | (a) Work at a big co, save a boatload of money, quit after a | few years, and then fund it yourself without the bullshit | coffee chats* and 18-month clock. | | (b) Work somewhere that has good work-life balance, pays you | enough, is okay with you spending your free time doing | something that doesn't compete with the company, and then build | it on the side until it makes enough money to replace your day | job, and only then quit your day job. | | * There are good VCs out there, but 95% of VCs will waste your | time, and you'll have to wade through them in your search for | funding. The amount of coffee chats you'll go through will | literally destroy your company because you won't have time to | do real work. | reidjs wrote: | What is the difference between a startup and a business | nowadays? | | I can start a business without an investment round, but not a | startup? Is it a startup if it involves tech, a business if | not? What if they use SOME tech, but not necessarily innovative | tech? Or is this one of those 'you know it when you see it' | kind of things? Has the term startup become a buzzword like | "optimize" or "synergy"? | | Seriously asking, not being snarky. | | edit: thank you, for the responses that clarifiesthe | distinction | NikolaNovak wrote: | My colloquial understanding is that Startup is meant to grow | fast, Business is meant to grow slow. | | Some of the causes and effects: | | 1. New business may have a proven business model, customers, | product, market. Startup may have to find or create any of | those | | 2. New business may have some capital to build/invest itself | (I've worked in a restaurant, saved up, now opening my own). | Startup is based on idea/people/work, but likely has no | internal capital | | 3. Both have risk; but in some ways New business risk is | known & understood. Startup's risk may be as undefined as | their product/market. | | As frequently used, there's also a | | 4. Expectation of profit / failure rate. A new business would | be happy to succeed with small profits, certainly very much | over bankruptcy/shutdown. Startup ecosystem/expectations are | built around fail or succeed wildly. | rising-sky wrote: | I think the first point is probably the most | differentiating characteristic. Startups are typically | about innovating, doing something differently from what's | expected or the norm. Typically, but not always, this leads | to disruption in the domain if the startup is successful. | But it should always be about innovating or attempting | something different in its domain, otherwise it's just | another business. | unixlikeposting wrote: | the word "startup" has been a buzz word since ~2012 from my | perspective. Ever since I saw established companies start to | describe their approach as becoming more "startup-like". | fijiaarone wrote: | Startup means a business that is "starting up". People have | become so divorced from reality that words don't even have | meaning anymore. | wizzwizz4 wrote: | Computer means a person who "computes". Photo-shop means | a shop that "develops photos". | strangattractor wrote: | The grow fast part is key. If you can out spend your | competition and out grow them it is much easier to monopolize | your market. That is how you become a FAANG. Not all | businesses have that potential however - which is why so many | fail. Failure in this case does not necessarily mean the | business is not successful - simply not successful enough. | munificent wrote: | I'm not a business person, but I always assumed "startup" | meant that you take venture capital. That in turn means you | now have a financial need to grow to a certain size for the | investors to recoup. | tiledjinn wrote: | Scale and speed of scale. Planning for fast growth. | | Most small businesses do not plan to grow very quickly. | praptak wrote: | Also the dual is true - bigger risk of failure is | acceptable. Normal business investor typically cares | between bankruptcy and having merely poor RoI. | | Startup incubators would rather have their 999 startups go | broke and the 1000th become "next Google" than have average | RoI on all 1000. | gnicholas wrote: | According to PG, a startup is a company designed to grow | fast. [1] Again, this is a bit at odds with the advice to be | frugal. It's not that you can't do both, it's that you have | to strike a balance because they are in many ways at the | opposite ends of a spectrum. | | 1: http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html | throwaway29812 wrote: | Right, and most often that growth is tied to a digital | product that can scale to infinity with little additional | capital needed. | personjerry wrote: | Joel Spolsky explains it well in this article: | https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/12/strategy- | letter-i-... | gopalv wrote: | > I can start a business without an investment round, but not | a startup? | | The answer around me seems to be that a startup comes out of | an idea without the capital worked out. That the equity they | have to offer is worth nothing, unless they execute the plan | with money they don't have. | | If you have the capital worked out, you can go ahead into the | business phase of the process right away, where profitability | is king and there's no plan needed to answer the "how to | raise more?" question. | | A lot of what we associate with startups is the | justifications towards raising and a lot of what we see from | a "business" is geared towards margins. | | For instance, better margins by extracting more profits on a | lower revenue is better for one, but looks bad for the other. | lightbulbish wrote: | I like a definition from Steve blank (I think). | | A startup is an organisation in search of a scalable, | profitable and repeatable business model. | | (Scalable is relative but at minimum exponential. Linear | growth does not a startup make.) | | The above definition has helped me clearly delineate between | an smb and what one feels is a "startup". Even used it to | explain to customers who wanted hourly work from us. | babyshake wrote: | You might be able to raise seed money from VCs and not swing | for the fences. If they are good VCs, they aren't depending on | their seed investments to all necessarily pan out within a few | years, if there is good reason to be more frugal. Series A+ is | a different story. | dahfizz wrote: | Once you've taken VC money, its growth at all costs. Where | "growth" is defined by inflating valuation, not necessarily | "real" growth of the company. | | If you want to be frugal and grow responsibly, you have to do | it without VC money. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _its growth at all costs_ | | If you've taken VC, you had a bad VC. Otherwise, this | misconstrues most VCs' advice in a downturn, which is to | prioritise staying alive. | TAForObvReasons wrote: | The key phrase is "in a downturn". When it is not a | downturn, VCs encourage startups to grow at all costs. And | it's extremely difficult to change course. VCs can change | advice overnight but companies don't have that flexibility | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _When it is not a downturn, VCs encourage startups to | grow at all costs_ | | The defining difference between a startup and small | business is scaling potential. If you can't grow, you | shouldn't take VC. | codegeek wrote: | I think you are missing the bigger point. VC money puts | pressure to grow at any cost and very quickly. That takes | away the freedom founders/teams could have to do a few | things at a different pace and more sustainably which can | still lead to scaling. VC = fast or die. No middle | ground. But there are ways to scale even without that | level of pressure but VC doesn't allow that. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _VC = fast or die. No middle ground_ | | VC is expensive capital. The same dilemma exists for | companies that issue high-yield debt. | | > _there are ways to scale even without that level of | pressure but VC doesn 't allow that_ | | Genuine question: what is this? | codegeek wrote: | "Genuine question: what is this?" | | More time. There are examples of bootstrapped businesses | that may be took a decade to get to first few million | which will be dead in VC terms. But they continued and | got to 100s of Millions. VC model would tell them to kill | it if after a decade, they were doing a lousy couple | million in revenue even if on the right path with PMF. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _bootstrapped businesses that may be took a decade to | get to first few million which will be dead in VC terms_ | | Isn't the criticism of the last decade of VC that it | backed many of these? | pjerem wrote: | It happened last year to my current employer. It also was | the 20 years anniversary of the company. | | Everything changed and I've seen it change from a small | agile business with nice people to a baby corporation | with up or out mentality, useless processes everywhere, | harassment methods from HR department. In one year, VC | money created as many millionaires as employee burn-outs. | TAForObvReasons wrote: | Bootstrapped small businesses can have the same scaling | potential as startups. They just value sustainable growth | over business fragility. It seems foolish during summers | but that mentality allows bootstrapped businesses to | survive winters in a way that startups can't. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _small businesses can have the same scaling potential | as startups_ | | Usually not. Most small businesses have geographic limits | to their scaling potential. That said, yes, there are | niches where small businesses will beat a start-up | competitor, at least in the short run. | gnicholas wrote: | So is this something PG wrote before YC was so deep in the VC | ecosystem, and that's why it makes sense for him to have | said? What would he have advised a startup to do back then, | after raising a $2M round? Would he have told them to keep | their burn rate low enough to stay default-alive? | | What would he say now? | waprin wrote: | If you compare the pg essays from 2000-2010 to 2010-now, | there's a very noticeable shift in tone on this exact | topic, even moreso if you zoom out of pg and consider YC | messaging then and now. | | Tons of old pg essays sound straight from something like | Indie Hackers or Microconf with their "avoid raising VC | money" angle. He even literally predicts the death of VC in | web SaaS, saying "investors aren't worth the trouble": | http://www.paulgraham.com/divergence.html . | | His YC cofounder Jessica Livingston wrote a book "Founders | at Work" and about half the founders in the book are | bootstrappers (DHH, Joel Spolosky, Craigslist). The other | half are mostly founders recounting horror stories of | interacting with VCs. | | Compare that to modern YC where there are videos where they | say _everyone_ should consider applying to YC with the | _only_ exception being people that want to bootstrap. | Modern Startup School says: "Without startup funding the | vast majority of startups will die." | (https://www.ycombinator.com/library/4A-a-guide-to-seed- | fundr...). | | There's something very important to note which is that YC | did not change the deal from 125k for 7% to 500k for 7%. | It's still 125k for 7% plus 375k worth of equity on your | next raise. Which only makes sense if there is a next | raise. So obviously they discourage bootstrapping since | their whole model has been built around you raising at | least one more round after YC. | | Seems a pretty simple case of "follow the incentives." YC | basically became more of a traditional VC over time. And I | think pg was still closer to a founder in the early 2000s, | from a founder perspective, it's more of a set of tradeoffs | whether you should bootstrap or seek VC. But from a VC's | perspective, obviously they want you to seek VC since they | can't get involved if you bootstrap and bootstrapped | startups won't get the outsized returns they need. | | My opinion is, pg is a smart guy, there's still a ton of | wisdom to learn from in his essays, but as with every other | person on the planet, consider their motivation and | incentives for telling you what they're telling you. | dasil003 wrote: | Also worth noting the 14 year tech bull run and ever | increasing amounts of capital looking for a return. In | 2000-2010 it was in many ways easier to bootstrap as | everything was smaller, complexity was less with simpler | browsers and no smart phones, UX expectations were less, | and salaries for software engineers were more in line | with average professional salaries. | | Not that I disagree with your assessment on pg's | incentives and YC's change in position over time, but the | environment for software startups is also materially | different now that affect you whether you take VC money | or not. | waprin wrote: | I'd argue the exact opposite. | | Key costs like hosting are way cheaper, back then you | probably had to rack server in a data center, now you can | deploy a free/cheap PaaS with a free/cheap database while | you find PMF. | | Marketing is way cheaper, social media is a grind but | it's a game you can play to acquire users/customers for | _free_. | | There's more stuff going on online, more people, more | businesses, more everything. Think about the entire | "creator economy", other bootstrappers, Shopify sites, | etc. | | Yeah some stuff has gotten harder, more platforms, higher | UX standards. But on the whole I'd rather bootstrap in | 2023 then 2010. | | Check in with me in a year though. | logifail wrote: | > Key costs like hosting are way cheaper, back then you | probably had to rack server in a data center, now you can | deploy a free/cheap PaaS with a free/cheap database while | you find PMF. | | Back in the day I have delivered several different cheap | 1U rackmount servers to data centres. Once took one - | using public transport - to whatever suitable spot in the | Docklands in East London. Travelling on the DLR with a | server under one arm was a a memorable experience. | | Long story short: you can do a lot from a $1000 server, | if you put your mind to it. | | Yet these days it seems PaaS is better, (over-)paying | GCP/AWS/Azure, while you grope around to find a product | that will sell for $$$ before your cloud credits run out? | bluedino wrote: | Back in 2009 I had a dedicated server for $89/month | | It wasn't the greatest thing in the world, but it was | dual-core, 2GB RAM, 160GB HD. I ran a small forum, email | server, and a couple buddies used it for shells and | running whatever PHP apps they wanted. | | An $80 Linode these days only has 16GB and 320GB. | FlyingSnake wrote: | I wish this comment was on the top level comment in this | thread. The divergence of pg from his original message is | really sad. The more you gaze into the abyss, the abyss | gazes back into you. | dopeboy wrote: | This is an excellent point. I'm with you - I still trust | his advice if not for his judgement for the fact that the | sample population of startups he's worked with is so | high. | | But this bias is there. I'd wager if YC started HN today, | it wouldn't be called HN. That name is uniquely related | to the times YC & PG came into. | efficax wrote: | sometimes this is true but not always, there are smart and | patient vcs who trust their founders | artemonster wrote: | Sounds like a pyramid with extra steps | [deleted] | longcrab wrote: | A ziggurat? | artemonster wrote: | We NEED more of those | bloodyplonker22 wrote: | To a cynical curmudgeon, it is a pyramid scheme for 100% of | startups. To normal people, it is a pyramid scheme when you | have a company like Theranos, which represents a very small | percentage of dishonest founders in technology, overall. | auggierose wrote: | Maybe that's what the VCs want, but you don't have to do what | they say. It is your company, after all. | gnicholas wrote: | That's an interesting question. If you are dead set on | being frugal and don't need help from your investors (in | the form of introductions, etc.), then you could draw a | line in the sand and refuse to cross it. | | If things don't go well, it would probably be hard to raise | money for a future startup, due to the reputational damage | of not having followed the VC playbook. | | If things go fine, the VCs would probably say you could | have grown even faster by spending faster. And what's | considered a 'fine' outcome for you (selling for $15M with | 1/3 for you) is not considered 'fine' for a VC whose model | requires bigger wins -- even if they take much longer. | tempsy wrote: | Budgeting for 18 months of runway doesn't mean "waste money on | frivolous things as fast as possible" | mach1ne wrote: | Not on all cases, but I personally know one startup where the | VC told the investors to hire as many people as possible, | regardless of whether they were actually needed. This | anecdote seems to ring true with what I hear elsewhere. | slap_shot wrote: | I think you might have conflated a few things: | | No VC is telling companies to just to wastefully hire | people they don't need. That wastes money and creates | friction and bigger problems inside of a company. | | They do tell you to hire aggressively, and you often | present them with a model that shows _how_ you will use the | money you raise, and sometimes you hire too many people on | accident. But no VC is pounding their fists on the table | telling founders to explicitly go hire people that aren't | needed. That's directly against the interest of both the | founder and the investor. | a_c wrote: | IMO start up or not depends on growth, growth in terms of | learning the product/industry. Many VC funded companies achieve | growth by throwing money on to problem, which works. But if you | manage to out learn your competitors while still staying alive, | essentially being cockroach, it is still start up. | jmathai wrote: | You shouldn't need VC to start (maybe ever) and probably | shouldn't be thinking about it until you've got some traction | and customer validation - which can take some time. | actionfromafar wrote: | It depends on what you want to do. Some things can take too | much time without investors, like building new kinds of | nuclear reactors. | danpalmer wrote: | Uncommon. You're right. This advice just doesn't work for most | startups. | | If you're pre-seed stage, in Silicon Valley, and the founders | have a "good" background (the right companies, knowing the | right people, etc), then sure you might raise a small round. If | you're any later than that, or anywhere else in the world, you | need results, and results don't come as easily in a recession. | fortuealex wrote: | Eh, it depends. | | Depending on your segment it may be easier to sell products | in a recession. Tools which cut cost and are below a certain | monthly spend actually become easier. | | Hiring is MUCH MUCH easier. | | Raising money is harder. | kneebonian wrote: | That was the way in the days of negative interest rates, and | cheap and easy money. We are headed for the greatest | contraction of capital since the great depression soon[1], and | that will no longer occur. | | 1. According to Zeihan, who points out that with the retirement | of the boomers their 401k accounts that have been funding all | this money are going to get cashed out and withdrawn, reducing | the amount of money for lending, leading to an overall capital | contraction. | im_down_w_otp wrote: | We've bucked this trend at auxon.io, and for the large part it | has been stalwartly supported by our investors. Quality pre- | seed and seed stage investors seem to have a different mantra | than is being expressed here. Though I've certainly encountered | investors who typify the criticism here. However, what I heard | a lot of from our investors is something more akin to, "The | biggest killer of startups is premature scale." | | Somewhat amusingly now that the capital environment has shifted | dramatically, we have investors coming around who used to give | us side-eye for being discerning and fastidious (and also our | investing resources early to acquire government & adjacent | customers), but now they treat us like secret geniuses or | something. Because we have a reasonably stable baseline to | build from. We're aligned with key markets that continue to | spend money even during down markets and recessions. Not to | mention we're also not in crisis having to massively disrupt | progress and morale by laying off a bunch of people (in fact | we're hiring, though still judiciously of course), which is | HUGE since team and execution is everything. | jrvarela56 wrote: | I've heard more startups taking this route after the new YC | deal. 500k buys a lot of ramen. | gnicholas wrote: | Yeah, I know of some that have pivoted at least once and are | still alive and kicking. I wonder how YC thought through the | costs/benefits of increasing the invested amount so much. | college_physics wrote: | _Are_ we in a bad economy? Bitcoin market cap is 400bln. OpenAI | eyes 30bln valuation etc. etc. | | Business cycles, timing the downturn and all that, does this | Warren Buffet type "sound contrarian advice" apply also in Alice | in Wonderland economies? | alfalfasprout wrote: | Just because bitcoin and OpenAI have nontrivial value doesn't | mean we're not in a bad economy. | | Inflation is rampant still, even wealthier folks are cutting | back, and interest rate hikes are destroying markets. Keep in | mind markets always lead the broader economy by at least | several months. They'll crash well before earnings consistently | start looking bad and recover before you see earnings recover. | US interest rate hikes are also having an outsized effect on | other countries vs. the domestic economy. | college_physics wrote: | its a very mixed bag. e.g., mortgage delinquency rates near | historical lows [0]. I picked those valuation examples to | illustrate that 1) there is a lot of discretionary | "investment" wealth around and 2) people are still clinging | to the various "disruption" narratives. | | obviously inflation is real and the new rates regime is real | but it feels that people are pre-emptively trying to cool | things down, build some buffers etc. rather than an already | realized economic malaise. | | the implication for the "time your startup" narrative of OP | is that it is even less clearcut of a decision than if it was | a real (let alone deep) recession. | | [0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DRSFRMACBS | rgmerk wrote: | Things might be bad in Silicon Valley right now but the | broader economy is still chugging along pretty well. | fortenforge wrote: | Does PG ever think it's a bad time to start a startup? | [deleted] | 082349872349872 wrote: | > _Another advantage of bad times is that there 's less | competition._ | slackfan wrote: | There definitely is. People are running around chicken- | litteling like the sky is falling. In the meantime, I'm | bootstrapping a services company because the person that | provides the megaphones while everybody is screaming at the sky | is the one who makes the money. | | It's not just less competition, it's the extant players in any | market assuming there is less competition and getting | blindsided by upstarts. | josh_carterPDX wrote: | "But it doesn't matter much either way. It's the people that | matter. And for a given set of people working on a given | technology, the time to act is always now." | | So agree with this sentiment. It matters less about when you | start a company. It's how you execute. You might be building | something very timely, but if you can't scale then it hardly | matters whether there's a recession or not. | roflyear wrote: | And scale doesn't mean technology. | Patrol8394 wrote: | VC has unfortunately pushed forward a model that rarely helped | building sustainable businesses, but rather grow fast, build | hype, IPO, cash out move on model. It definitely benefitted few | at the expense of many. | | People have accepted to work tireless hours for peanuts and paper | money with the promise they will become rich: this rarely happen. | Don't buy the hype. It is more the exception than the rule. | | Many multi billion dollar VC funded business are still not | profitable and often don't have a path to profitability. | p0pcult wrote: | >but rather grow fast, build hype, IPO, cash out move on model | | you missed the step where you completely destroy the | established market, and then when you're the only game left in | town, make for a more expensive and/or worse product/service | than what existed before. | josh_carterPDX wrote: | I think this is the old way of thinking in the VC world. Yes, | it still happens, but I think enough VCs have been burned by | garbage deals that they are starting to look under the hood | more carefully. No VC wants to be funding the next Theranos or | WeWork. Bad economy doesn't mean going back to 2008 funding | levels. I think a bad economy today means that the companies | being created need to have a viable path for growth as well as | profitability. | Patrol8394 wrote: | >No VC wants to be funding the next Theranos or WeWork | | I wouldn't bet on it. Wait for $$$ to become cheap again and | you will see all sorts of garbage with multi million $$$$ | evaluation out of thin air. | josh_carterPDX wrote: | It's a good point. It does seem like some VCs have short | term memory. | UncleOxidant wrote: | Both of the companies cited as examples early on the the | article, Microsoft and Apple were basically started by a couple | of guys in a garage (or dorm room). VC wasn't involved until | later stages. Probably most of their early funding came from | parents. There are plenty of things that don't need VC funding | to get going - they can either be self-funded or with loans | from relatives in the early stages. At some point the decision | can be made as to whether VC is needed to expand or if it's | just fine to stay small. | | In the 90s my wife worked at a software company that makes | scientific imaging software. They have a nice niche and | continue to sell their software into academic and research | labs. They never had more than about 7 employees - now about 5. | It's a decent business that never needed VC funding and has | gone for about 30 years now. | dopeboy wrote: | > Probably most of their early funding came from parents. | | Perhaps VC is an equalizer here. It makes it possible for | founders (like me) to start the next Microsoft without having | to rely on privilege. | | I understand allocation of VC resources has its own privilege | issues but I'll take that slightly more accessible world over | a world where your family determines the outcome. | UncleOxidant wrote: | Rich parents helped in the Microsoft case, but I don't | think that was the case for Apple where the parents of both | Jobs and Wozniak were middle class. | zurtri wrote: | I launched my startup May 1st 2021. And yes COVID was still very | much in play. | | My thinking was if I can survive in the lean times, I can survive | in the better times. | emrah wrote: | A good companion article to read in tandem (also by Paul Graham): | http://www.paulgraham.com/notnot.html | jyu wrote: | It's an open secret that investors get 20% of the upside for 1% | of the work of founders. Parrot enough plausible nonsense to | impressionable people to get favorable investment terms and | you're well on your way to monetizing your position as a newly | minted thought leader. | | Nice work, if you can stomach it. | jsjdbbd wrote: | [flagged] | bloodyplonker22 wrote: | It's also an "open secret" that investors lose their investment | when the founder fails. In addition, more than 90% of VCs are | money losers, overall. Founders are taking the risk with their | time, investors are taking risk with their money. | rebelos wrote: | Investors are taking a risk with _other_ peoples ' money. And | their management fees usually cover very juicy base | compensation, so their downside risk is minimal. | gowld wrote: | Those fees don't last long if they get bad returns. | clpm4j wrote: | Some people seem to be overthinking this by a long shot. If you | have a company you want to build, then it's always the right time | to start. The greater economy will always have influence both | positive and negative. But considering this, it's probably better | to start in a "bad economy" than a "good economy" assuming it's a | strong business idea that you can keep alive and grow until the | economy becomes "good" again, and then you can exit into the good | environment rather than starting when things are rosy and | wanting/needing to exit when things inevitably turn south again. | atlgator wrote: | We're not in the same market as this article. Typically, in a bad | economy salary expectations are lower making a startup launch | more "affordable." Unfortunately, that is not the case currently | with ongoing inflation. Salary expectations continue to increase | on average, not decrease. | roberttod wrote: | Taking this with a pinch of salt given the nature of our current | situation vs. 2008. | | > Technology progresses more or less independently of the stock | market. | | Progress could be defined in many ways, but sure as hell there is | less money in the tech sector, and funding is very difficult | right now as far as I understand. | | I do agree with the sentiment that the market shouldn't affect | your timing if it can be avoided, but I wouldn't expect it to be | very easy to start something capital intensive with a long road | to profit right now... | m0nk3y wrote: | From Paul's perspective in 2008, this makes sense. And generally, | this is sound advice. | | However, in the 2010s, we saw an explosion in tech business | opportunities and cheap capital during strong economic times. | Most of today's unicorns are from this era. | tempsy wrote: | Well the biggest difference is that the economy was "bad" then | but central governments/banks were accommodating. | | It's "bad" now because central banks are actively making capital | more expensive, which makes it harder to raise money for a | speculative bet. | UncleOxidant wrote: | The two examples given early in the article, Apple and | Microsoft were basically both started by a couple of guys in | their garage. Not a whole lot of capital was needed initially. | Sure, in later stages of both companies capital was needed, but | the initial development stage were mostly self funded (some | loans from parents likely involved at some point). Capital was | way more expensive in the 70s when both of these companies were | founded than it is now. | sogen wrote: | Note: Bill Gates' mom was a high rank executive at HP or | something similar, forgot the details. | UncleOxidant wrote: | The Gates' definitely had money. His dad was a lawyer and | founded a law firm. Definitely helped. | gnicholas wrote: | According to Wikipedia, he joined an existing law firm, | and his name was added to the firm's name. [1] That firm | later merged with other firms, and continues to bear its | name even decades after his retirement. I imagine he/they | made a good deal of money on their client Microsoft, | especially during their antitrust trial! | | 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Gates_%26_Ellis | gowld wrote: | It's a beautiful story of nepotism and rent-seeking. Bill | got the job from a powerful friend of his mother, bought | someone else's work outright, customized it, and licensed | it to IBM on incredibly Gates-friendly terms (pay per-unit, | non-exclusive license). | | https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/obituaries/mary- | gates-64-... | | https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/05/how-bill-gates-mother- | influe... | | > Mary was a respected businesswoman with many | responsibilities, including her membership on the board of | nonprofit organization United Way of King County. There, | she met the late John Opel, then-chairman of IBM, who also | was a member of the United Way board. | | > IBM's talks with Digital Research started to flounder, | and when assessing options, Opel remembered Microsoft as | the company "run by Bill Gates, Mary Gates' son," according | to The Seattle Times. | | > When Microsoft won the job, it didn't actually have an | operating system of its own. So in 1981, the company bought | QDOS, an operating system created by hardware company | Seattle Computer Products, and with it developed MS-DOS, | the Microsoft Disk Operating System. Microsoft licensed its | MS-DOS to IBM to use as the operating system for its | personal computer. (In addition to Microsoft, IBM also | contracted Digital Research and SofTech Microsystems to use | their operating systems for IBM's personal computer.) | teeray wrote: | If there is true intrinsic value in the company's offering, I | wonder if there's opportunity for fully bootstrapped startups | to thrive. Maybe the growth isn't explosive, but it might be | more sustainable. | tempsy wrote: | I mean it will be harder to raise capital extensive seed | rounds but i'm sure small seed rounds will still be fine. | | As in I would be really shocked to see a new Uber for X or | grocery delivery startup raise tens of millions right now, | but yes small teams building something that isn't very | capital intensive will likely still be able to raise money. | Apocryphon wrote: | There's a theory that I've seen on HN: in the event of a | civilization-destroying apocalypse, future civilizations will | find it incredibly harder to industrialize, because our current | society has used up all of the cheap energy supplies and easy | to extract mineral resources. | | I wonder if that is applicable here as a metaphor. | 015a wrote: | I've pondered this from the perspective of the Fermi Paradox; | that Earth had a really fortuitous series of events where the | planet went down one line of flora/fauna evolution that, | despite millions of years of evolution didn't to our | knowledge amount to intelligent life; experienced a global | apocalypse which allowed that (plus later/earlier) | flora/fauna to decay and become an easily available source of | energy; then had a second line of evolution which did, for | whatever reason, result in intelligent life; which now has | access to all that energy from the last iteration. | | To me, that's a really convincing explanation for the Fermi | Paradox. There may be other intelligent species out there, | but evolution on earth seems to have a history of producing | killing machines (and crabs. its always crabs). So, the gate | to get to intelligent life isn't probable; and then you hit | the gate of "does that intelligent life have enough local | resources to escape the gravity well of its own planet", a | gate which for earth practically required a prior chain of | hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and an opportune | asteroid impact to clear that chain out and make way for a | new one to roll the dice again. | | The mitigating factor for the second gate is: There could be | other resources which could provide the power to escape a | gravity well independent of biological decay (e.g. uranium, | hydrogen). But at least in human history: think of what it | _took_ for us to fully understand how to harness oil, let | alone uranium or hydrogen, create a rocket, and get to space | safely; we did that with the tremendous benefit of plentiful | hydrocarbon resources (global shipping, computers, mining | rigs, plastic, etc). At minimum; a species without this | advantage would take _a lot_ longer to get to our level; but | we did it in just a couple hundred years. | | Universal timescales help, but they also work against; as the | earth has showcased, planets get bombarded by civilization- | ending asteroids often. So, either an element of luck, or: a | species has to have these structural advantages, and apply | them for the purposes of asteroid defense before the next one | hits; or its all over and the clock resets. | | Point being if I were a betting man: there are probably | between 1 to 4 civilizations in our galaxy (including us) | which have reached a similar or greater level of technology; | but a great number more that are functionally trapped in a | steampunk age, unable to escape their own planets. | | My other more fringe theory for the Fermi Paradox, which to | be fair is practically the entire plot of The Last of Us, is: | that the Apex Predator on every planet that is capable of | evolving carbon-based life is Fungus. Eventually, Fungus | always wins; and takes intelligent civilization with it. | generalizations wrote: | I've seen that theory here too. A counterargument is that | we've also brought a lot of valuable resources to the | surface. Industrialization may simply be 'differently hard'. | Apocryphon wrote: | To apply that back to the metaphor, it's also said that one | salutary side effect of the dotcom bubble is all of the | infrastructure built during it, such as high-speed fiber, | which were fundamental for the Web 2.0 wave. So perhaps | that is the "surfacing" of resources that a later tech | boom- our boom- profited from. | gowld wrote: | In the event of a civilization-destroying apocalypse, energy | needs will be tiny, so they can use the existing mines and | fields and whatever. | paulpauper wrote: | Inflation is ironic in that it means people get poorer. | Deflation of assets but inflation of prices. | paulpauper wrote: | 2008 was a huge outlier though. This was the start of the hugely | lucrative cloud, app-payment, SAS, smartphone, 4g, app-store, | social networking, mobile confluence. Also, low interest rates | forever. A typical bad economy is not like 2008. But sound advice | guessbest wrote: | Not really sure how this advice is still relevant since Facebook | with its own app store model helped save the tech industry in | 2007 from the downturn like the one in 2001-3. | | The next big thing appears to be AI (not VR), but I don't really | see how it can really compete with that historic low cost | startup. What would a MVP AI even look like? Would it only be a | good AI part of the time? We already have that. Try using Siri. | | > That was the task for some Stanford students in the fall of | 2007, in what became known here as the "Facebook Class." | | > The students ended up getting millions of users for free apps | that they designed to run on Facebook. And, as advertising rolled | in, some of those students started making far more money than | their professors. | | > "Everything was happening so fast," recalls Joachim De | Lombaert, now 23. His team's app netted $3,000 a day and morphed | into a company that later sold for a six-figure sum. | | > Early on, the Facebook Class became a microcosm of Silicon | Valley. Working in teams of three, the 75 students created apps | that collectively had 16 million users in just 10 weeks. | | https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/technology/08class.html | Apocryphon wrote: | And it's astounding how much Facebook apps have been forgotten, | with Meta's neglect and abandonment of their own platform. Not | that it was a technology with an extended lifespan anyway, | users were only going to stomach endless notifications from | FarmVille and Mafia Wars for so long. | alex_c wrote: | I wouldn't say Facebook apps were forgotten as much as | actively suppressed by Facebook after a certain point in | time. | | In the early days of the platform app developers had a huge | amount of freedom in terms of accessing users' social graphs, | pushing notifications to timelines, and so on. It made it | incredibly easy to build a viral loop and push out an app | that spread like wildfire. | | Obvious downsides to that - big privacy issues, and annoying | users with endless notifications like you said. Facebook had | to start restricting what app developers could do, and once | that happened it became much harder for apps to get traction. | smcl wrote: | Please remember that PG is a financially very secure person, who | is in the business of getting people on board with YC and | committing to throw themselves 100% into tech companies that will | individually more than likely fail. | | If PG says "you should start a startup in a bad economy" it's | simply a clever sales pitch, a spin on the current circumstances. | Back in 2008 when this was posted it was presumably in response | to the Global Financial Crisis (or "Credit Crunch" in the UK), | I'm guessing it's being posted again due to the recent layoffs. | | It _may_ be the right time for you to take the plunge, but you | should be reading this article with a clear head and remember | that this is not an old friend giving you some sage advice, but | someone who is incentivised to get you to take risks on their | behalf. | jrockway wrote: | Yeah. The alternative is to chill out at your current job and | be able to pay your mortgage, and then start a startup when | money is raining from the sky like it was in 2021. It's | cyclical. Tech isn't dead forever, and what's a good idea today | will still be a good idea in a couple years. You'll also be a | couple years wiser, which is never bad. | volkk wrote: | or, someone will simply start your idea (assuming it's | original and good) and be first to market. lots more nuances | around first to market, but PG has a point. there's no right | answer and it's all personal, but if you do have an awesome | idea, and it makes sense financially for you, then there's no | point in waiting X years. you're just throwing those years | out. worst case, what, you get rejected from funding because | of a grim financial future? it's still extremely valuable | spending that time building your project and getting that | awesome experience of pitching/getting rejected. | | there's always an optimistic take to everything and a | pessimistic one. if you're always taking the wait and see | approach, chances are you're not going to do anything later, | either. be somebody who does things and doesn't just sit | around dreaming and waiting (like me) | TruthShare wrote: | And if this happens you switch jobs to the newly funded | company and rest and vest. No shame in this game either. | aerosmile wrote: | Any startup that will hire someone focused on resting and | vesting hasn't figured out their hiring, which is a 100% | indication that the vesting is not going to be valuable. | awill88 wrote: | Or maybe they wouldn't know if they did? Are we | pretending we're all mind readers? | birdyrooster wrote: | Any startup that has a business model which cannot | accommodate the incumbent work culture hasn't figured out | their business model, which is 100% indication that the | vesting is not going to be valuable. | mrbgty wrote: | eh, even original and good ideas aren't that valuable. | Sometimes an individual can get lucky with a gimmick but a | sustainable business is usually successful when a team of | great people are both having and executing on good ideas on | a daily basis - and still needs luck. | aerosmile wrote: | I can't figure out if you're being sarcastic, because if so, | you're nailing it. If not, literally every single argument | you brought up is against the consensus in the YC community, | which doesn't mean you're wrong, but it still stands out as a | massively contrarian position on this site. | Apocryphon wrote: | The current fiscal environment is against the consensus in | the YC community. The times they are a-changin'. | jrockway wrote: | I'm not being sarcastic. | | I get that people are concerned about their ideas being | stolen, but honestly, you can probably come up with another | idea. I think what most people who have their ideas stolen | find is that it turned out to not be a good business, and | someone else invested 2 years of their life on a painful | slog to discover that. On to the next idea! | [deleted] | itake wrote: | The advice could be for people that were laid off and face | months of unemployment. Quitting your job now to start a | startup might make less sense. But also, quitting your job | now and getting a grant when stocks are undervalued, could be | a good move too. | cableshaft wrote: | Also can also hack up an proof of concept or MVP during that | time as well, a few hours a week at a time. Even if you don't | complete it, you'll have that much more progress towards it | when you decide to take the plunge later. | _fat_santa wrote: | How I read it is, during a good economy money will be more | plentiful and investors will be more willing to invest in your | startup. If you know it's easy to get investor dollars and | every subsequent round of funding is almost guaranteed, you | have the luxury of not being immediately profitable. It's much | easier to peruse a business plan where you peruse growth and | larger long term profitability at the expense of short term | profitability when the economy is good because you are | constantly getting investor funds and it's easier to sell new | investors on your idea. | | In a bad economy you don't have that luxury. Not only is there | not as much cash to go around, investors are pickier with the | cash that they do hand out. This means you can no longer pursue | a business plan that sacrifices profitability for growth, you | have to prioritize making money. Assuming your business | succeeds, it will then be better prepared to get investor cash | when the economy improves and can theoretically weather future | financial storms better. | | I realize this is a very idyllic way of looking at it and there | are a million other variables that come into play, but I think | pg is definitely looking at it in idyllic terms in his piece. | mrits wrote: | With so much supply I'm not sure he needs to write articles to | increase it. | smcl wrote: | When the economy turns, people get scared and want to take | less risks. This is an attempt to nudge you to maybe take | some risks rather than spend a bit more time upskilling | and/or searching for a role in an existing company. | | It's not technically wrong or anything, it's just business. | But people sometimes forget that because we do get good, | honest, selfless advice on here and it's sometimes hard to | differentiate. | proser wrote: | Keep in mind this article is 15 years old. It could get a | driver's permit in most US states. | [deleted] | mbesto wrote: | Your sentiment is overall very valid, however please also | remember this was PG who wrote this in 2008 and YC was only 3 | years in. | | > I'm guessing it's being posted again due to the recent | layoffs. | | This was _submitted_ again (by someone not affiliated with YC), | but it 's a repost. | | Objectively speaking starting a startup in a recession / bad | economy is actually a good idea. There are numerous examples of | why this is the case, but the simplest explanation is that you | get to follow a regular venture cycle that correlates to the | highest returns. Since it usually takes about 7~10 years to get | to $1b+ valuation, this follows a normal market cycle. There is | a reason an unprecedented amount of software companies IPO'd | 2020~2021, because valuations were sky high, and not because of | those individual businesses were strong but simply because the | market was hot. If you can ride that wave you can create | incremental wealth for _yourself_ , regardless of whether a VC | is involved. In other words, timing is everything and starting | when the market is at the bottom _is_ good timing. | smcl wrote: | I didn't intend to imply there's anything untoward going on | here re posted/submitted, it's the same to me and I | acknowledge in my post that it was originally posted a long | time ago. | dgb23 wrote: | I agree with your caution. But the other side is that PG was | right in 2008. Some of the big unicorn startups started around | that time. | mambru wrote: | Survivorship bias? | throwaway29812 wrote: | Without data on industry wide startup failures year over | year, impossible to say. But most likely yes. | travisjungroth wrote: | Not necessarily. If you say starting a company is great | because you asked 10 post-exit founders what they thought | and they said "lots of work but totally worth it" that's | survivorship bias. Founders that didn't survive wouldn't | say the same thing. If you're saying that founding a | startup in a down economy is a good idea because of a | higher chance of survival that's not survivorship bias. The | non-survivors aren't ignored, they're included in the rate | calculation. | time_to_smile wrote: | I think year here is also super important. In 2008, even | without the benefit of hindsight, investing in tech is not a | crazy idea. We had a real-estate/banking crisis and there was a | lot of people looking to figure out where to put their money. | | Tech in 2008 looked very healthy, and VC funding only went up | from there. | | We're looking at an actual contraction in the tech sector now. | We can argue how about whether this is a small "correction" or | something more major, but I think it is a good idea to not just | blindly apply good market advice from 2008 to the 2023 | landscape. | | It probably is a great time for a startup, just probably not a | tech startup. | alfalfasprout wrote: | > It probably is a great time for a startup, just probably | not a tech startup | | Well, it's not really an issue of tech vs. non tech anymore | is it? A good chunk of the largest companies are now under | the "tech company" bucket. It boils down at the end of the | day in whether they invest heavily in tech or if it's | incidental. | | This mashes together companies as diverse as Tesla, | Snowflake, and Airbnb together. The former is a car company | with inventory, etc. The middle one is a SaaS company. The | latter a travel company platform. | | Ultimately, a few things are clear-- even after 5% interest | rates get slashed (which looks increasingly likely to happen | in 2024 and not 2023) investors are no longer interested in | businesses that have no idea how they'll attain | profitability. I would argue this is a good thing-- it now | forces companies to be strategic in what they invest in. | nickdothutton wrote: | The single best reason I'd give, for why it's a good time to | start a startup in a downturn, is that it's all signal. There's | little or no noise. No noise from buyers who are just tyre | kickers, or who buy a little but dont truly adopt, even from VCs | who might at other times waste a lot of your time. | jll29 wrote: | I would say whether PG is right or not depends on how much | initial funding the founders have and what they're trying to | build. | | If you have not a lot of savings to live from, and your runway is | therefore short, you'd be stupid to quid your day job and launch | your startup: your small savings will quickly be used up and | that'll be the end, because you won't be able to raise a round. | | If, however, you have substantial savings to deploy so that you | can get far enough to afford to pivot 1-2 times until you find | product-market fit, then PG is right and taking the plunge is the | right thing, regardless of business environment. | | If your plan relies on customers, then it also depends on whether | your product or service is aimed at reducing customer cost or has | value in a different way. | | To exemplify the above: I claim "You can/should start something | like AirBnb in a bad economy, but not Google." | sircastor wrote: | > so that you can get far enough to afford to pivot 1-2 times | until you find product-market fit, | | This line of reasoning has always felt so bizarre to me: try to | start a business doing something you think is important and | when you find it doesn't work, try some other business until it | does. I understand it as a response to things not working out | as expected, but people go into business with this as a | strategy. | | I guess I'm just not that type of person. | MattGaiser wrote: | I assume the idea is that the initial impulse was in the | right area, but the first attempt itself isn't quite correct. | | So you learned a bunch and therefore aren't starting from | scratch with the 2nd try. | | I.e. you make some environmental tool and try to sell it to | the government. You learn that the government is a byzantine | mess. You then sell the tool as part of a service to the | corporations causing the mess to prevent future lawsuits. You | pivoted, but the tool itself still had value. | hideo wrote: | I think its a distinction between the type of person that | says "I want to build a business, I think building product X | sounds like a good way to do so" and the type that thinks "I | want to build product X, I think building a business sounds | like a good way to do so" | davedx wrote: | > I would say whether PG is right or not depends on how much | initial funding the founders have and what they're trying to | build. | | I think PG is fairly criticized for some things, but on this | topic I trust that he knows what he's talking about. | randomdata wrote: | _> I claim "You can/should start something like AirBnb in a | bad economy, but not Google."_ | | Yet AirBnB was born into a good economy (that, in fairness, was | on the cusp of going quite bad), while Google was born into an | economy that was just starting to recover from being bad. Not | when you start but when your product is ready to ship may be | more significant. By the time Google was ready for prime time | we were in a good economy. When AirBnB was ready for prime | time, we were in a bad economy. | | Skate where the puck is going, as they say. | boulos wrote: | > while Google was born into an economy that was just | starting to recover from being bad. | | Huh? Google was started in the mid to late 90s (incorporated | 1998 but started earlier at Stanford). It was quite literally | during the peak years of the dot com bubble and the US | economy was doing fantastically well. The Clinton | administration was even trying to draw up plans for what to | do if the national debt was paid off... | | Are you thinking about when Google went _public_ in 2004? | randomdata wrote: | Work on Google started in 1996. While things weren't bad | per se, we were still working through recovery from the | early 90s recession. It wasn't bad but it wasn't good | either. By 1998, when Google was ready to ship, things were | quite good. | | If, in an alternate universe, work on Google had started in | 1998 when the economy was strong and didn't ship until | 2000, things could have been quite different. It was no | doubt important that they were ready to ship when the | economy was at its peak. That means starting when things | aren't so good. | boulos wrote: | Using unemployment as a reasonable signal, I don't think | 1996 is that connected to the 1991 recession. | | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=YUZM | | Sure, it was still above 5% in 96 nationally. But | strongly down from the summer of 92 peak. | | Additionally, Netscape's IPO was in August 1995. I | wouldn't call that a bad environment for starting an | internet company. | newaccount2021 wrote: | [dead] | logifail wrote: | > If, however, you have substantial savings to deploy so that | you can get far enough to afford to pivot 1-2 times until you | find product-market fit, then PG is right and taking the plunge | is the right thing, regardless of business environment. [snip] | I claim "You can/should start something like AirBnb in a bad | economy, but not Google." | | Q: How many times did AirBnb and/or Google have to pivot to | find product-market fit? | fidgewidge wrote: | PMF is tricky. Google's first product was a hit, but it | wasn't a market fit because nobody was paying for it so there | was no market. They were attempting to sell an enterprise | version (the search appliance). They pivoted pretty fast to | AdWords. | | Like, is there PMF if no money is changing hands. I saw | Docker be described as having extreme PMF but they went down | because they had a product, but giving away cool stuff does | not create a market. | mach1ne wrote: | Some startups do, some don't. | logifail wrote: | > Some startups do, some don't | | I'm not sold on pivoting, and I'm not the only one. See: | | Too Many Pivots, Too Little Passion | https://hbr.org/2012/09/too-many-pivots-too-little-passion | Swizec wrote: | Google pivoted from "ads ruin search engines" to one of the | world's biggest advertising companies. That's a pretty big | pivot | ttul wrote: | The runway from nothing to something is about ten years on | average. If you start when times are hot, you're closer to the | next reset event and more likely to experience the reset before | you exit. If you start when things are dead, you have the most | time to figure things out and exit when things are hopefully not | dead yet. | karolist wrote: | Is the economy really bad now? US unemployment rate is lowest it | has been since 1970, where I live the restaurants are full, roads | are full of cars, planes are full of people, hotels are booked | for events well in advance. What exactly is bad besides people | having less throwaway cash because eggs and bread is more | expensive? Tech layoffs are, IMHO, more an excuse to cull bloated | orgs without getting negative press because everyone is doing it, | not because of necessity. We're past the Ukraine/Russia war shock | and resource shortage scares, what else? | soapspudster wrote: | I'm of the opinion that the right time is always now. However, | when things are great, large wealthy companies over-hire and | over-pay everyone. It sedates good employees to stay and be | comfortable. | | When things hit the fan, the larger and fatter a company is, the | more likely they will throw the baby out with the bathwater. They | go into ultra-stupid cost-cutting mode and that is a great | opportunity to hire some of the best dormant employees you'll | ever meet. | | Since the best determinant of a company's success is the makeup | of the team, I'd say when the economy is bad is the best time to | start a company. You'll land some of the best talent and that'll | give you the best chances of success. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-01-18 23:00 UTC)