I'm sure this is the magazine's fault, but the headline could easily be misconstrued: "Paul Graham has launched 145 companies. His formula? Smaller Cheaper Faster"
I guess it depends on what you mean by "launched", but if I didn't know about this stuff already, I'd think they were trying to tell me PG literally started 145 companies as a founder.
Again this is a knock on the magazine and not PG. They're probably just trying to sell more copies.
I'm just saying the headline is ambiguous, and Paul Graham did not start 145 companies as a founder. I don't see why that seems to trivialize his role. It's not as if I said he doesn't advise the founders.
I know some HNers can get quite defensive of PG, but it really isn't necessary here.
Thanks. The guys who took those pictures were really impressive. They had a monitor displaying pictures as they were taking them, and the quality was amazing.
Would you please not be so gutter-minded - I have two young ones, and the professional pics I have of them are worth every penny. The reminder is for those in the same boat that may want to spend the money instead of relying on their own N megapixel camera ...
Hopefully "Smaller Cheaper Faster" resounds in the minds of Inc's readership. Perhaps they will even take the time to read some of his essays where he expands on this perspective.
Congratulations Paul. It will be nice to have a prominent page on ycombinator.com that links to all launched startups.
Edit: Found the link -- http://ycombinator.com/faq.html
268 days on this site and you don't know what he looks like? btw, the buttoned-up, black-sweater look is not "American", but straight up San Francisco. The man sold out; his earlier MIT/Boston/East-Coast look was the traditional "Lisper" look (i.e. wife-beater and bandanna)
What sort of surprised me was hearing pg talk in some video. I'd been reading his stuff for years, and the voice is completely unlike what I'd imagined.
Yeah, he sounds normal doesn't he? Previously, all my contacts with "business gurus" have been hyper-agitated, super-excited sales guys, motivational speakers and the like; think Jack Welch.
I hope he won't take offense at my dissecting it, but he sounds more ... hrm, I'm not sure what the accent is... it reminds me a bit of Dave Sifry, actually. You could really hear it when he said "so" in this video, which tended to be a bit drawn out: "seeeewwww". I expected something a little bit more clipped and neutral.
Perhaps the difference is that he spends a lot of time getting his essays 'just right' whereas speaking is a bit more of an off-the-cuff affair.
File it under that internet phenomenon of knowing a lot about someone (or at least one facet of them) without seeing or hearing them and being a bit surprised by the reality. Sort of like reading a book and then seeing the movie and being a bit disconcerted.
Please note that YC is a company, not a cult. I don't see the need to "spread the message". WTF is the "message"? Whoever has the "right stuff", will find YC or similar companies. It's that simple. PG's essays are all the marketing that YC needs. Your "fanboyism" makes you look like you're 12 years old...
more mainstream publicity should be a good thing. it's not a cult, and it's not like only the "anointed ones" with the "right stuff" should know about YC. spreading the startup "message" -- that you can start your own company, instead of slaving away at a BigCo -- should be a good thing, so i'm a bit confused as to where your animosity comes from.
I remember that Marc Andreessen was on the cover of Time or Newsweek back in 1996. The internet was starting to take off, and a bunch of really young guys became instant millionaires thanks to mega-hyped IPOs. Seriosly, does one need publicity more mainstream than this? Everyone knows Gates, Ellison, Andreessen, etc.
Everyone can dream of starting a company, few can do it. I lost the count of how many smart guys I met who talked about big ideas and "thinking outside the box" (whatever that is), and being entrepreneurial and how taking risks was sooo cool... only to join a safe, cushy job at a management consulting firm as soon as they graduated. They may have the smarts, but they could not face the constant emotional terror of running a startup. Dreaming and talking is the easy part. The difficult part is to walk the walk, the commitment and persevering on the face of hardships. Some will succeed, most will fail.
I am sorry if I sound bitter. I have worked at a couple of startups which failed. You know... you think you can beat the odds, but the odds end up beating you. I get upset when I see these young kids thinking that the startup world is a "movement" and that there's preaching to be done. I used to be exactly like that, and it's a waste of time. The startup world is brutal. There's a tiny chance you will succeed, and a huge chance you'll grow old, bitter and burnt-out. Pick your battles carefully. Sometimes your dreams cost you too much.
fair enough. but in my book, success or failure, quality of life is so much higher at a startup (whether your own or not) than at a BigCo that if you're qualified, i'm honestly not sure why you wouldn't.
sure, there are perhaps only so many years of your life that you can live on "ramen noodles", but even after that, working at a funded, 20-50 person company sure beats the alternatives, and you still get to be involved in the "creation" part, even if you didn't start it.
to each his own, i suppose. after a bunch of bad experiences, i can understand how you'd be burnt out.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "launched", but if I didn't know about this stuff already, I'd think they were trying to tell me PG literally started 145 companies as a founder.
Again this is a knock on the magazine and not PG. They're probably just trying to sell more copies.