PG is actually out there, and doing something meaningful. No portfolio has a success rate of 100%, but we can agree that PG's success rate is > 0%. Ted should shut the fuck up and succeed even a little, before talking smack.
I agree. It'd be one thing if it was funny, or actually picked holes in pg's arguments, but it's not much better than the average youtube comment.
"Ah, yes. It's a crying shame that your landlord won't accept an explanation of your idea in lieu of rent. "
If you're founder material you'd sleep at your parents/friends for a year, or get a night job or do some consulting to pay the bills.
It's at times like this where people are tested and those that don't have it, fail. Which is why I guess he quit pressflip. This is just bitter rambling really.
I agree about the lack of insight. The reason I posted it here is to hear the counter arguments and even voice my own. Uncov is incredibly annoying to me, but I feel like it is more beneficial to have a thoughtful and contradictory discussion about it here than to leave it unspoken. That's part of the beauty of HN.
While stupid, it's highly relevant. It's worthwhile to read contradicting opinions, even if just to understand why they are wrong. Same reason I have KFPA (a communist radio station in Berkeley) programmed into my car radio.
But this isn't really an opinion, it's just name-calling. I'd have no problem with it if he had any logic as to why PG is wrong. I guess that would first require understanding PG's essay, which he clearly didn't. In fact, nothing he said even seems to contradict PG's thesis, which was (as I read it) that even though now isn't the best time in history, it's still +EV, and waiting is -EV.
Seriously, what's up with people on the internet always seeming to say the same thing. It's like this:
- One guy says that the financial crisis is the terriblest thing to happen to us since 1939. Then a bunch of blogs come up saying the same thing
- Then someone says that all the startup apps that just try to gain users should suddenly all buckle down and start making money. Then a bunch of blogs suddenly pop up saying the same thing.
These are just thought trends. Wake up sheeple and think for yourselves. If the media starts panicking, there is one thing you know for sure - everyone will start panicking too. Now, once you know that, you are now well positioned to take advantage of the other peoples panic.
If people are telling you to start making money now, and you observe your competitors following that advise and avoiding to grow, it's exactly the right time to grow quickly - because others are doing the opposite, implying that growth is cheaper. Later, you can monetize your userbase even better, because you can see what worked and what did not work for the competition.
It is because the human brain tends to be wired in a certain way. One guy says something and other people begin to reflect on what he has said. Since their entry barrier to publishing has been lowered by magnitude via blogs, it is easy to put these reflections up for others to grab and reflect on. The ball is now rolling.
Some times, when reading blog posts like these, I wonder if the point of the post is to disagree for the sole purpose of driving traffic and gossip. The problem is not that these people publish. The problem rather is that they get upvoted on a site like this one. The article lacks a number of compelling arguments as to why his viewpoint is true. On the contrary, Grahams article backs the statements up by history.
PG's killer point is that the success of your startup depends on whether you can make it a success more than any other factor.
More than your technical skills, more than the economy, more than your education, more than other people's belief in you, it's your determination to overcome that makes it.
To learn what you don't know, to break down difficult obstacles and go around impassable ones, to raise investment where there was none, to build confidence where there was fear, to adjust to new conditions when existing ones change, to think of any other breakfast cereal motivational slogans that you can, eat Frosties and win.
For me it's simple. Paul Graham is the guy with the money, the one that is "making it." I love Ted Dziuva, and for all of his humorous, scathingly accurate (most of the time) insight, he Ain't all that good a businessman.
So when it comes to picking apart shitty, business concept-less startups, Dziuva is THE man.
For all things business and big picture-ness PG is THE man.
The way I see it, people should rejoice because Ted says he will never seek funding from PG or anyone that looks like him. So one less person chasing those funds.
A true businessman and startup guy would never say "no" to funds. Ted did look a little naive right there.
The entire write up is just ridiculous. His main point is that VC is going to be too hard to come by and PG is too optimistic.
He is probably just confused because his startup failed before the downturn, and thus things must be impossible after the fact. It is such a shame that well-founded optimism backed by helpful actions on the part of PG is attacked, however poorly.
