skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Some companies have more than 100 employees you know.

I bet that the YC news engine could be wrapped as a really nice intranet news site where the employees locate and vote on content that is relevant to the company.

There are many more ideas like that.
I disagree with you at one point. A site that provides information may not want the information to be indexed.

For example, an escort girl's website may just want to show portfolio of pictures to her potential clients, but she will not want Google to index them.

Information is to be consumed by human. Sometime we may just want to keep machines to access it.
Recursive Lakes
You need to change their stinkin' thinkin'. They think they need a package for everything. They don't. They can't imagine what can be done with modern technologies like AJAX, LAMP, frameworks, etc. They think "agile" is doing something in 6 months instead of 2 years.

You need to show them otherwise. Telling them is like talking to a wall. How to show them? Find a specific pain point unaddressed or poorly addressed by their current software. Then write a prototype to solve that problem and show them. Give them a chance to digest it, and when the "aha" moment comes, you've got a prospect.

I didn't say it would be easy, but who cares. The opportunity is so big, it'll be worth it.
This New Vulnerability: Dowd’s Inhuman Flash Exploit
"The world is flat."

I'm not sure I believe this one. I've lived in a lot of different places...and I know that I build better technology when I'm surrounded by technology people. Humans are social animals, and if your peer group is building next generation technology you're more likely to do the same...likewise, if your peer group is pushing paper, building cars, milking cows, packing chicken, etc. I suspect you're far less likely to be producing the best technology. You might be happier. You might be able to run your company for longer without raising money or running out of what you did raise. But, I doubt you're building the best technology you're capable of building. Maybe I'm unique...maybe nobody else is effected this way, but I doubt it.

Of course, if by saying "enterprise software", you mean "a market no one else is interested in, and thus I can build any old technology I want and people will have to buy mine", then sure. No matter where you are, you'll do fine. But what happens when an agile web-based competitor arrives who are using modern techniques and have hired the best nerds they could find in the technology center where they're based (which are, let's face it, better than the nerds you can find in a non-tech-focused city)?

I also have very little data, I just think the reasoning is flawed somewhere, since whenever I've met someone starting a company in the sticks (often "to save money"), it is fatally flawed from the get-go--often based on five year old thinking. I'm just suggesting that maybe there is a continuum of "tech productivity goodness" and that the Valley is near the top and Idaho is near the bottom, and placing yourself at the bottom of the continuum might be bad for your odds. Balancing other elements is certainly fine...but beware of what you're giving up by "saving money".

In my previous business I did a lot of work in out of the way places ("packing chicken" was actually true of the city where I once worked on a pretty big project, and the IT and software managers there were desperate for talent but simply couldn't hire it at any price)...you keep acting as though "once you have your employees" it doesn't matter where you are. But, employees leave, and if you're lucky your company will grow. You have to hire sometime if you survive.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think the evidence is much stronger that you are than that you're not.
The author is like a blind man thinking that an elephant's leg is a tree.

How could he comment on that which he never sees?

Like small companies that grow with the best infusion of cash there is: from customers. Here's a novel concept: if you can solve your customers' problems, protect your market share, manage your cash, and keep a finger on the pulse of your business while growing it from within, why would you ever need a quick exit?
Quoting from John Battelle's book on Google,"...Page set the price at $1.6m, but Excite CEO Goerge Bell threw Vinod Kholsa out even at $750,000..". That was c.1998.
Zune VideoX: Microsoft’s iTunes killer?
I pray to pagan gods.

I have this wall chart of all sorts of religions, and I move a game piece around it like a boardgame. Then whoever I'm on that day, I pray, like, "O great Yegbabo, deliver unto me a vision of a start-up idea." Then I imbibe the appropriate ceremonial substance, such as hashish, peyote, coca leaves, licking a toad, LSD -- it depends on the culture.

Anyway that's how McCarthy "invented" Lisp (he was at Esalen on vacation with Timothy Leary).
"Exit strategies" are strategies for investors. Venture investors need to get their capital back at some point, and the phrase "exit strategy" means the strategy for getting it. It doesn't imply anything one way or the other about what the founders do.

Though you may not be old enough to remember it, Apple had one of the most spectacular exits in history. Their IPO in 1980 was the biggest since Ford's.
Forget the Courts — Apple May Fight Mac Clones With Tech
Gone in 60 seconds: Spambot cracks Live Hotmail CAPTCHA
I have yet to read a post that had "built to flip" in the title that wasn't sanctimonious bullshit. It's invariably a signal that the author is going to brag about how he's in it to build companies of lasting value. But ask yourself this: how would this guy feel if he funded a company that became very successful, but never got bought or went public? Not very good, you can bet, when his current fund closed and all he had to give his limited partners was some highly illiquid stock. So all he's really saying is that he hopes the companies he invests in go public. But all investors want that!
> Apple had one of the most spectacular exits in history. Their IPO in 1976 was the biggest since Ford's.

Amazing they managed to IPO before they even shipped the Apple II. ;)

Haha, yesterday I was off by a year but today you're off by 4 :P

Apple went public in December 1980.
HowTo: Marketing Efforts of a Startup -- Part I
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=153676

?
As noted above, the VC firm Charles River has a seed fund that invests $250,000 per deal:

www.crv.com/AboutCRV/CRVQuickStartFAQ.html

This is a brilliant idea! Ycombinator has been a true innovator -- they saw a gap in the capital markets, they had the guts to go out and fill it, now a lot of guys are copying what they do, but they will always enjoy first mover advantage. Charles River is doing the same thing, filling a gap that everyone knows exists but no one so far has actually filled.

One of my reactions to the Ycombinator standard approach -- $15,000 for 3 months of funding -- is that 3 months is a very show time frame. I am pretty good at what I do, I frankly have a lot more experience than the kids who get Ycombinator funding, I typically work about 70 hours a week, and I know I am quite productive at what I do. I don't go for home runs but at the same time, I don't go for singles. I go for doubles, that is a risk/reward range I am comfortable with. I find it takes about 12 months to get it running reasonably well, and I have done it several times before. I would not want to work on a 3 month time schedule. If I did, I would be going for singles and singles just are not that interesting.

To me, a single is a deal where you end up with $1 million cash out after two years. A double is $5 million after two or three years. A triple would be north of $10 million, no later than four years. Anything north of $25 million is a home run. Anything above $100 is a grand slam home run.

I do not need financing, I just fund them myself, but if I did, the Charles River deal would be much more appealing. Assuming I needed the money, with $250,000, I could get two partners, we each pay ourselves $60,000 a year, perhaps burn up another $50,000 in expenses in one year, for a total burn of $230,000,leaving us $20,000 margin (admittedly, not a lot). But in one year with two really good partners, we could do a hell of a lot of work, perhaps a triple rather than a double.

I really like what Ycombinator is doing but so many of their investments seems unambitious -- two smart college students who whipped something up in a month. Perhaps they might build a company from that, but in some cases, I am skeptical.

James Mitchell
jmitchell@kensingtonllc.com
The challenge with the $200k-$500k funding gap is the fact that most VCs make funding decisions by partner consensus.

After spending the last 8 month trying to put such a round together, and going through the process with quite a few VCs, It's apparent that this brings 'boldness' way down because all the lead partners need to develop the intuition necessary to be bold-- on what is essentially a hypothesis on market development or consumer demand in a field that is usually not their individual core expertise and in the short time frame that this business allows nowadays. doesn't happen often.

This is why these sort of investments are made by small/ partner-lean funds or through the "strong" partner in a more traditional firm... and there aren't enough of those.

It's not that they don't want to make those sort of investments, its that they're not setup to do so. In our discussions, we've gotten to, at several occasions, a point where our sponsor partner is actively trying to get the deal done, only to fall apart because of this need for uniform consensus of the entire clan.

If I were a VC, I'd focus on streamlining that process through more partner independence as I agree that this is the sort of funding a truely innovative (particularly web software) company needs to establish itself these days and they are mostly missing out...
What counter intuitive things have they learned by analyzing all their user data?
Of course, if by saying "enterprise software", you mean "a market no one else is interested in, and thus I can build any old technology I want and people will have to buy mine", then sure. No matter where you are, you'll do fine. But what happens when an agile web-based competitor arrives who are using modern techniques and have hired the best nerds they could find in the technology center where they're based (which are, let's face it, better than the nerds you can find in a non-tech-focused city)?

Isn't it presumptuous to think that one's city would dictate one's knowledge of "modern" technology? If you're going to stagnate, you'll do it wherever you live.

I'll concede the point about local staffing but, again, if you've got your team together and build your startup so that it's profitable, you'll have no problem hiring when you need to.
I don't have the ability to downmod but my guess would be that it doesn't address anything in the article or add anything useful to the discussion.
Googolopoly
Valley’s Green Car Feud: Tesla Sues Fisker
The Stupidest Business Decisions in History
My thoughts are this... You are in a low tech town, but you have a startup where you do not plan to get funding.

Well then your ultimate goal is to get exposure and users. How do you get exposure to the press in Silicon Valley if you are in Winnipeg (dont know that is where you are from but its a start)?

A blog, being part of the communities that they are apart of. Social networking sites, posting comments to articles on their blogs. ITs a lot of work, but you could honestly make it seem as if your startup is in silicon valley even though it is no where close. The key is what another user said...the world is FLAT! Take advantage of it.

Chris
http://www.stampedeblog.com -- our startups blog
http://www.propertystampede.com -- our startup
Well, I haven't had any complaints yet...

I currently have two co-founders on two different projects, and then three projects I am doing myself (with lots of ideas bounced off my wife and other entrepreneurs).

One of my co-founders I previously founded a different company with that was sold to a public company. He is also currently running another business. So he knows the modus operandi pretty well.

My other co-founder also runs another business. So there really isn't any time resentment there either.

In answer to your points a-c:

(a) I work on all the projects all the time, at least to the extent that I am thinking about them and coming up with ideas continuously. In other words, I don't silo them in my head. While they are quite distinct, they all are Web based, so there is significant useful overlap.

It's not when I feel like either. We schedule specific times to meet, discuss, and work as needed.

(b) I don't insist on doing everything myself, but I do insist on knowing the details of everything inside and out. That being said, on all my projects (right now) I am the only (highly) technical person, so I naturally do all of that stuff myself, e.g. coding/sysadmin/etc.

(c) I do question everything, but all the projects are much off better for it.
I started my company in Seattle and just recently moved to SF -- even though Seattle is extremely tech-friendly, it's still like moving from the countryside into the Big City. Ideas abound, it's like the whole city is involved in a big brainstorming session. Even if you don't need more talent or money (lucky you!), your product benefits.
I used to think VCs were in the "encouraging & profiting from innovation" business. They're not. They're really in the "let's find the least risky deals and put money in them" business.

I used to think good VCs were those who identified the huge successes before everyone else did. Instead, good VCs are just the ones who get access to deals before the ordinary VCs.
But maize is only one grain, and I didn't see it mentioned in the article.
Move to Austin! I consider this THE place to be. It is a tech city, we have Silicon Hills, its MUCH MORE CHEAPER than SF and you have all the commodities of the tech cities like SF, Seattle and Boston. Plus, we have UT Austin, a top 10 school in CS, in case you are looking to recruit.
There are plenty of less sexy tech companies that are thriving outside of hubs.

This is certainly true: take East Dallas metro, for example. Richardson is the telecom hub, and there's plenty of enterprisey Java crudapp work in this area. There just isn't a tex-mex YCombinator (dang!).
Consider practicing a discipline where you write down one new idea every day. Most of these ideas will suck, but tracking them over time might show you (1) some deeper ideas and (2) that even if 95% of your ideas suck, that 5% is still enough to work with.

I'd worry about "devoting" hours/days to idea generation. You can make more progress by drafting, shipping, and refining an idea than by sitting alone generating a lot of ideas without implementation. Take your best idea and figure out the fastest way to make it into something people can use. Pay attention and you'll learn a ton.
A business isn't a digitally downloaded good.

Edit: just to clarify they are referring to things like "eBook teaching you how to make $1,000,000 a day by doing nothing!" type sales
Well you got the century right.
I've been thinking about it. :)
I'm going to guess that this post has limited interest to this audience (please correct me if I'm wrong).

But what may interest you, if you're a dev, is TAOSSA, Mark Dowd, John McDonald and Justin Schuh's awesome Addison-Wesley book on reviewing source code for security problems:

http://taossa.com

If you code, and there's just one book you're going to put on your shelf to fill the "security" slot, fuck Applied Cryptography (which is going to cause security problems in your code). This book is about as large, and, in stark contrast to Schneier, flipping to any page of it is probably going to improve the security of your product.

In the very best case with your company, people like Mark Dowd --- or at least people who've memorized his book --- are what you're up against the moment someone decides your security needs to be reviewed (to take credit card numbers, manage personal information, or get deployed at a Fortune 500 client).

Highest possible recommendation.
It helps me to understand the principles something is derived from. Then, I know the path and I can deviate from it.
Virgin ISP? Not with all the porn I've downloaded it isn't.

Err now as for myself...
That's what robots.txt is for.
Do you feel that you can just "think different" and new thoughts come to you?
In response to your point: Doesn't seem that eccentric except the first bullet point.

The eccentricity stems from the extreme adherence to the principles. Like I said in the post, “I think a lot of entrepreneurs follow these principles to some extent, at least some of the time. But I take their adherence to the extreme. And I think that is where the sustainable competitive advantage actually arises.” Some examples:

Do as much as possible, myself. Startups usually silo tasks functionally, even if all co-founders are somewhat exposed (via emails/meetings/etc.). Usually X is primarily responsible for sysadmin, Y for the "front-end", Z for "marketing" or whatever. Not so with me. I'm in everything 100%. I also am quite reluctant to outsource things that other startups usually outsource, and it has helped me in the past in countless ways (scale easily, get to optimal configurations quicker, generate innovative ideas faster, etc.).

Question everything, all the time. Startups usually move on when things are done, at least until the next “major revision.” For example, a team may do the “design” of this page or that, and then not touch it for quite a while. I consciously try to think about everything as much as possible, and I tweak little things (like individual words, a pixel here a pixel there) all the time. It is a much more rapidly iterative process.

Only trust data. Startups generally are not doing A/B testing and other experiments all the time. But they should. And I do so whenever I have the sample size to get meaningful results. And even if not, I try to change things up and get anecdotal evidence to point me the right direction. Again, I mean even down to little tweaks, like one word changes and their impact on various conversions. I think this is an essential part of moving to optimal solutions faster.

Don't seek funding unless there is a good reason for doing so. Startups generally take some money to pay for salaries and what not. Not me. It has to be a “good reason.”
I agree, but I hate the idea of delivering movies with flash. There are plenty more flexible options out there. It's much more enjoyable to watch videos on my favorite media player.
I think it's largely the latter. When you have fewer memories, everything is newer, so each moment is more vivid. As time seems to slow when we have adrenaline rushes, the same with vivid experiences.
Where's Our Real World Data Portability?
If George Clooney denounced DRM/a patent troll/baby killing, would the denouncement be any less valid? Celebrities may not be experts, many of them may even be idiots, but if they use their celebrity to promote a worthy cause rather than themselves, that's a good thing. When they lead action for that cause, that's even better.
> what part of 'make something people want' contradicts creating value?

Crack? Junk food? Time-wasting websites? People rarely act even in their own best interests.
Heh, that's neat. I've seen a couple people here recommend using the world's massive computer gaming habit to do data analysis. Cool to see that might actually be fun, and if someone created a good startup based on this idea, I'd definitely participate!
If any part of the Leopard EFI has a component that can be construed to be a security measure to prevent the software from use on unauthorized hardware, Apple has a DMCA case. And the DMCA does have teeth.
Indeed. I've found last.fm to be better than Pandora.
You are sick of flash haters, flash haters are sick of you. And people who simple don't use or like flash -- like me -- choose to live on the side of the web where we can read the information we want and move on. We can even use the web without a full blown gui, and it works just fine.

There's clearly demand for people who use the web for playing games, watching movies, etc. Anyhow, you have to understand that there's people who's on the web for the information. That kind of people will be annoyed by poping flash screens messing up their reading experience.
On the bottom floor? You must be kidding me. Average salaries of CS graduate after 3-4 years out of school are in six-figure range in most parts of the country. That's in top 5% of US population and you can hardly call that a "bottom floor": ask your mechanical or civil engineering friends how do they feel about such "bottom floor".

My younger brother was kind of pissed with his $80K offer from Microsoft immediately after graduation claiming that some of his friends did better. That's ridiculous.

Stop kidding yourself, huge percentage "Web 2.0 entrepreneurs" just aren't interested in building real value-providing businesses. Startups like Twitter aren't built to be companies, they're built to flip - it's included in their "business model". I can't speak for more well-known startups, but those I am personally familiar with are all built on the premise of M&A nearly immediately after starting to break even.

THAT is the primary reason why there aren't too many "next Googles". Not many people are ambitious enough to aim than high.

It is kind of sad that Paul rarely participates in discussions like this one, but understandable given his limited time, but I'd love to hear his opinion on this.
Edgecraft.

Seth Godin describes the process in Free Prize Inside.

(http://decentmarketing.typepad.com/weblog/2004/05/on_the_edg...)
The article is about why he hate that particular Flash website, not Flash.

Flash is THE best way to deliver heavy weight rich internet applications on web.

With Javascript, you would:

if(ie 5){
//do stuff..
}else if(ie 6){
//do stuff..
}else if(ie 7){
//do stuff..
}else if (IE generic fail edition){
//do stuff..
}else if(Opera){
//do stuff..
}else if(Safari){
//do stuff..
}else {
// do stuff
}

With Flash you would just "do stuff"..

Now, this doesnt mean Flash is better than Javascript.But when delivering heavy weight RIAs, its better to stick on to Flash.Why overload client side with untargeted code?
Mixing GPL and NON-GPL code
mostly 'ajax' it isn't even always really ajax. Just ajax-ish.
YES!!!! It can be done. I created a web app with LAMP and we are selling it to the top companies in Switzerland
Before I started my first startup, I used to see all sorts of problems and never really think that they could be applied to something. But after I started something based on what a friend of mine came up with, I've been able to see so many problems that I've had before, and come up with ideas on how to solve them. The only difference was that I had gone through the process to understand a fundamental problem that existed and focused on how to solve that problem.

What I'm trying to say here is that the difference in thought is really thinking if anything that you are doing could be done differently or better.

I would argue that my thought processes pre-startup and post-startup are very different, and also that I've been able to have new ideas because of it.
Flash does have 'cut n paste'. Its developer choice to implement it or not.