How to Succeed with a Startup [video](blog.ycombinator.com)
blog.ycombinator.com
How to Succeed with a Startup [video]
https://blog.ycombinator.com/sam-altman-how-to-succeed-with-a-startup/
82 comments
Number 4 is exceedingly important and it's counter to popular thought. Bootstrapping is painful but if you start growing fast you won't have to seek them out the VC's will find you.
It just depends on the game you are playing. Currently you can make more money selling the emotion of owning a piece of something great to investors, than selling the actual product to customers.
[deleted]
Only over the short-term. Over the long-term, these should even out, all other things being equal.
Long-term thinking feels like a lost art nowadays...
To simplify further:
1. Be good at product management
2. Do marketing a lot
3. Be smart financially
4. Be smart financially
5. Do marketing a lot
6. Be good at product management
7. Be smart financially
8. Be good at product management
1. Be good at product management
2. Do marketing a lot
3. Be smart financially
4. Be smart financially
5. Do marketing a lot
6. Be good at product management
7. Be smart financially
8. Be good at product management
[deleted]
don't forget product must pass toothbrush test, be simple enough for people to understand, and be the greatest thing since sliced gluten free bread
> Ignore Venture Capital
I have trouble seeing how this works in a robotics or biotech company. Yes, if you're building something facing consumers on the web you can go a long way on small savings and people just putting time in. But if you want to build something that requires some capital simply to keep the business running that's going to be difficult.
I have trouble seeing how this works in a robotics or biotech company. Yes, if you're building something facing consumers on the web you can go a long way on small savings and people just putting time in. But if you want to build something that requires some capital simply to keep the business running that's going to be difficult.
As stated:
> If it takes a lot of money to create what your customers want
I assume that covers what you are talking about...
> If it takes a lot of money to create what your customers want
I assume that covers what you are talking about...
"1) Build a product people actually want and need and will pay money for"
This piece advice seems leftover from a bygone era as this is so fundamental that I wonder does it even bear saying?
Again, if you're building something people don't want or aren't going to pay for, something is seriously fundamentally wrong and you should try to define what you're even trying to achieve; that is, you're not even trying to build a business but may think you are.
In most industries, making money is usually the very first thing that happens and, in some cases, happens before a thing is built or a service is provided.
Starting a business == making money. Maybe it's not profitable, but money should be changing hands. If that's not happening, go back to the drawing board and question everything.
We're not in the Dropbox circa 2013 era anymore.
This piece advice seems leftover from a bygone era as this is so fundamental that I wonder does it even bear saying?
Again, if you're building something people don't want or aren't going to pay for, something is seriously fundamentally wrong and you should try to define what you're even trying to achieve; that is, you're not even trying to build a business but may think you are.
In most industries, making money is usually the very first thing that happens and, in some cases, happens before a thing is built or a service is provided.
Starting a business == making money. Maybe it's not profitable, but money should be changing hands. If that's not happening, go back to the drawing board and question everything.
We're not in the Dropbox circa 2013 era anymore.
On the other hand, the battle-tested formula for startup domination is:
1) Get to <insert singular mind-blowing metric, like 1 billion users or 1 million drivers>, whatever it takes (bending the laws of unit economics or bending the law in general).
2) Monetize.
1) Get to <insert singular mind-blowing metric, like 1 billion users or 1 million drivers>, whatever it takes (bending the laws of unit economics or bending the law in general).
2) Monetize.
Even though that advice is obvious, it is so relevant and I see lots of people who don't actually follow it. Yes, hard to believe but it is true.
How many times do you see a "show HN" post where the project being showcased is just a very simple project. I am not sure if people are just showing it for feedback or if they want to make the project into a startup eventually. A lot of these projects I see seem like they are just simple features but the developer wants to commercialize it. Problem is the current version of the project is so simple that I rarely see any real market for it unless the project is something really amazing.
How many times do you see a "show HN" post where the project being showcased is just a very simple project. I am not sure if people are just showing it for feedback or if they want to make the project into a startup eventually. A lot of these projects I see seem like they are just simple features but the developer wants to commercialize it. Problem is the current version of the project is so simple that I rarely see any real market for it unless the project is something really amazing.
How is 1) more broadly applicable? Nobody wants to pay money for anything. Perhaps you could say _would_ pay money for if they had to. Even still, the world of internet users has been trained to get a lot of great valuable things for free (Google, facebook and virtually every other consumer service) so their willingness to pay is skewed heavily towards free
In those cases, the user is not the customer. The old saying goes, if you're not the customer, you're the product. Google, FB and the like monetize users through advertising. The product is not Gmail or Facebook. It's advertising to their audience. You are the audience. Advertising is the product. And so the broadly applicable advice is still relevant. But you know this. In that light, ask the question - who is the customer and what do they want from the product? The customer is the advertiser, and they need to want what FB and Google and Twitter have to sell. You're confusing the value that the users get (which is how they build and maintain the audience) with the value that the customers get (advertising to that audience).
And besides, how many startup founders are REALLY building the next Google or Facebook right now? Most are building something much more modest, in which case, in those cases the user is most likely the customer and so building something they want to buy is important.
And besides, how many startup founders are REALLY building the next Google or Facebook right now? Most are building something much more modest, in which case, in those cases the user is most likely the customer and so building something they want to buy is important.
Who said anything about customer? Your advice is to build something that people will pay money for. My point is you can build something where users come first, and perhaps the "customers" don't show up until later. You can have great product metrics before you have a single customer. In many cases you can't even serve the customer before you have great product metrics. And I think startup founders should always be thinking of building the next Google or Facebook? It is sad to think otherwise
No offense, but before I take counter advise from a stranger, care about to share your credibility?
- "Product so good that people wanna tell others about it" doesn't mean this is an excuse to hide in a corner and keep building the product. Product can't be "good" if it's not based on frequent and lots of conversations / interactions with users.
- The point about "exponential growth in market" is very important if your startup wants to raise money from VCs and has similar goals. Otherwise, focusing on creating value even in mature markets can be a good choice too. Same point applies to the "Huge if it works" point too.
- His point about real trend vs fake trend is also a good point for your own product's real usage vs fake usage. Are people "really" engaged and using your product or are they just thinking that it's cool but not really using it?
- I have nothing to add to what he said about the team, but team is so important that I wanted to mention it as well.
- His point about optimism is another point where team (or advisors or well-wishers) help. A startup is a roller-coaster. You will have days of negativity and doubts. At that moment, a team member (or someone similar) who pushes you and encourages you is very important!
- Love the points about "We'll figure it out" and "I've got it"
- "Bias towards action" doesn't mean being busy for the sake of being busy. In my career, I've seen so many months wasted because action wasn't based on well-thought-out logic. So, certainly keep bias towards action, but don't use it as no excuse to not think. A good way to not move fast is to move fast in unnecessary directions.
- The "Never lose momentum" point is so difficult in real world (unless you're lucky). But, good to be reminded about.
- The point about "Distribution startegy" is another great point. Every distribution strategy we are thinking of is going to turn out to be harder than we thought. Still, finding new / unexplored distribution sources compared to your competition can be a great win!
- I am sure this wasn't intentional, but I'll say that the talk didn't focus enough on users / customers. In the end, it's all about creating genuine value for the customers / users.
- The point about "exponential growth in market" is very important if your startup wants to raise money from VCs and has similar goals. Otherwise, focusing on creating value even in mature markets can be a good choice too. Same point applies to the "Huge if it works" point too.
- His point about real trend vs fake trend is also a good point for your own product's real usage vs fake usage. Are people "really" engaged and using your product or are they just thinking that it's cool but not really using it?
- I have nothing to add to what he said about the team, but team is so important that I wanted to mention it as well.
- His point about optimism is another point where team (or advisors or well-wishers) help. A startup is a roller-coaster. You will have days of negativity and doubts. At that moment, a team member (or someone similar) who pushes you and encourages you is very important!
- Love the points about "We'll figure it out" and "I've got it"
- "Bias towards action" doesn't mean being busy for the sake of being busy. In my career, I've seen so many months wasted because action wasn't based on well-thought-out logic. So, certainly keep bias towards action, but don't use it as no excuse to not think. A good way to not move fast is to move fast in unnecessary directions.
- The "Never lose momentum" point is so difficult in real world (unless you're lucky). But, good to be reminded about.
- The point about "Distribution startegy" is another great point. Every distribution strategy we are thinking of is going to turn out to be harder than we thought. Still, finding new / unexplored distribution sources compared to your competition can be a great win!
- I am sure this wasn't intentional, but I'll say that the talk didn't focus enough on users / customers. In the end, it's all about creating genuine value for the customers / users.
> Product can't be "good" if it's not based on frequent and lots of conversations / interactions with users.
It also can't be good if you're not implementing the ideas being surfaced in those interactions, and implementing takes longer than talking with people. If you have a conversation with someone and end up building something they ask for that takes six weeks of full time work, then does it really make sense to delay the timeline on shipping that feature so that you can keep talking with more potential users who will likely have the same objections anyway? I'm not trying to justify not talking with users, but at the same time once you've gotten the message, it may be time to hang up the phone.
It also can't be good if you're not implementing the ideas being surfaced in those interactions, and implementing takes longer than talking with people. If you have a conversation with someone and end up building something they ask for that takes six weeks of full time work, then does it really make sense to delay the timeline on shipping that feature so that you can keep talking with more potential users who will likely have the same objections anyway? I'm not trying to justify not talking with users, but at the same time once you've gotten the message, it may be time to hang up the phone.
Don't change your product based on one conversation.
I find Sam Altman's advice on startup completely and utterly useless. They're akin to the "How to become a millionaire" books. I've said this in the past [1] that providing generic advice doesn't work for startups. Every company is unique and they have unique challenges. Instead, Sam should be focusing on bringing stories of various startups in light, interview their founders and have a focused discourse on what worked and what didn't for that __particular__ startup.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17309725
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17309725
Amen. This barely (if at all) applies to enterprise startups ("make something people want to tell their friends about" doesn't run up against internal decision-making and budgets very well... and "something that's easy to explain" is something that's only relevant in the right industry) and doesn't apply at all to startups in particular industry sectors, government-oriented, or even many hardware oriented ones.
This applies to a subset of Silicon Valley-style, hyper consumer oriented, VC-backable startups that at the end of the day, are fairly interchangeable.
This applies to a subset of Silicon Valley-style, hyper consumer oriented, VC-backable startups that at the end of the day, are fairly interchangeable.
I sort of disagree in one important sense: all generic advice is pretty useless.
How to succeed in sports? practice, focus, take care of your diet and health
How to succeed in a large company? keep your boss happy, work hard, focus
etc
This is not Altman's fault. I don't think the videos can -- or are supposed to -- replace actual detailed daily advice on struggles which, presumably, you get if you join Ycombinator.
I don't think that "focusing on bringing stories of various startups to light" is all that different from what he is doing. The same criticism applies: it is their story not yours.
And the same caveat applies: it is a sample of the kind of advice you will get.
How to succeed in sports? practice, focus, take care of your diet and health
How to succeed in a large company? keep your boss happy, work hard, focus
etc
This is not Altman's fault. I don't think the videos can -- or are supposed to -- replace actual detailed daily advice on struggles which, presumably, you get if you join Ycombinator.
I don't think that "focusing on bringing stories of various startups to light" is all that different from what he is doing. The same criticism applies: it is their story not yours.
And the same caveat applies: it is a sample of the kind of advice you will get.
I think you're right - all generic advice, __by definition__ is not going to be specific and its utility is questionable.
The problem doesn't just lie in the answer, but the question itself. When you ask a question such as "How can I do well in life?", that lends itself to generic bullshit advice.
My problem with Sam Altman is that he keeps perpetuating these kinds of questions as if he is going to help people. I am disagreeing with both what he is trying to appoint as a question, i.e. "How to success with a startup?" and his generic answers to his generic questions.
It helps nobody. Stop asking these questions.
The problem doesn't just lie in the answer, but the question itself. When you ask a question such as "How can I do well in life?", that lends itself to generic bullshit advice.
My problem with Sam Altman is that he keeps perpetuating these kinds of questions as if he is going to help people. I am disagreeing with both what he is trying to appoint as a question, i.e. "How to success with a startup?" and his generic answers to his generic questions.
It helps nobody. Stop asking these questions.
>It helps nobody
I think you may be just looking from your own point of view that you find things obvious but that doesn't mean general advice won't help others.
I think you may be just looking from your own point of view that you find things obvious but that doesn't mean general advice won't help others.
Do you read any kinds of books on how to get better?
I am addicted to them. As a kid I used to read books on judo, karate, the guitar, programming, and how to be a spy.
I now read books on startups, investing, programming and writing.
The actual improvement comes from the practice, but I still feel the books and advice play a critical role. They can do the following:
1. They pump me up to go and practice.
2. They actually demonstrate particular exercises or thought experiments.
3. They just get me thinking about the particular item
4. They make me fell less alone because others are thinking about it
5. They make the activity seem important in the life affirming sense of it is worth my time
I think all we can ask of "startup advice" is that it fill a similar niche.
I am addicted to them. As a kid I used to read books on judo, karate, the guitar, programming, and how to be a spy.
I now read books on startups, investing, programming and writing.
The actual improvement comes from the practice, but I still feel the books and advice play a critical role. They can do the following:
1. They pump me up to go and practice.
2. They actually demonstrate particular exercises or thought experiments.
3. They just get me thinking about the particular item
4. They make me fell less alone because others are thinking about it
5. They make the activity seem important in the life affirming sense of it is worth my time
I think all we can ask of "startup advice" is that it fill a similar niche.
I agree.
Even if "generic advice" isn't worth anything else, the psychological benefits of keeping a subject at the front of your mind, being reminded something is possible, and building excitement are valuable.
Even if "generic advice" isn't worth anything else, the psychological benefits of keeping a subject at the front of your mind, being reminded something is possible, and building excitement are valuable.
I want more stories from Loopt. It was ahead of its time and I know he learned a lot from his time as a startup CEO (before joining YC) that we rarely hear about.
I tend to agree. The more experience I gain in running startup companies the more I believe the recipe for success is 1) show up 2) work hard 3) get lucky. And #3 is super important.
The upcoming videos in this series are mostly presented by startup founders, employees, and investors speaking from their personal experience. To your point about generic advice not working for startups, his advice seems distilled down to the most general advice that does work for startups. Given the number YC has incubated he probably has a good grasp on that. To me these videos are like candy, intuitive but great reminders nonetheless.
Yes, this is why Founders at Work is such a great book: it's full of interviews and case studies, and the reader is free to interpret the stories and learn their own lessons.
[deleted]
I agree that it is a high-level type of advice but it is actually spot on. Everything can't just be handed to you. The hard part about his advice is actually executing on it. Even creating a product that people want and will pay for is extremely difficult.
Terrific intro to Startup School v2.0!
In a similar vein to the question "Why do startups win?", which besides having a rich history of rigorous academic inquiry and to my thinking has never been adequately resolved.
One can ask, "Why does Startup School work?" And a chief factor is the imposition of an external hard deadline (Demo Day). As well as the tracking of performance metrics by a team outside the locus of founders.
To that end, a "Milestone Tracker" interface that is both public and designed with accountability in mind could be a key component in making things "real" for participants.
It also occurs to me that in a class of 15K startups, you are going to receive a lot of "offers" to try products and services from your fellow classmates. Just in the past hour I got $250 in credits from a cloud analytics startup, and a discount coupon from a crowdfunding platform for foodies ;)
Manageable for a cohort size in the low hundreds. But perhaps an issue at scale that may result in missed opportunities.
It may be a good idea to have a centralized site at startupschool.org/offers with a canonical list of "startup-to-startup" (S2S) deals.
Of course it would be differentiated from third-party credits by the likes of GCloud, AWS, Stripe, etc
In a similar vein to the question "Why do startups win?", which besides having a rich history of rigorous academic inquiry and to my thinking has never been adequately resolved.
One can ask, "Why does Startup School work?" And a chief factor is the imposition of an external hard deadline (Demo Day). As well as the tracking of performance metrics by a team outside the locus of founders.
To that end, a "Milestone Tracker" interface that is both public and designed with accountability in mind could be a key component in making things "real" for participants.
It also occurs to me that in a class of 15K startups, you are going to receive a lot of "offers" to try products and services from your fellow classmates. Just in the past hour I got $250 in credits from a cloud analytics startup, and a discount coupon from a crowdfunding platform for foodies ;)
Manageable for a cohort size in the low hundreds. But perhaps an issue at scale that may result in missed opportunities.
It may be a good idea to have a centralized site at startupschool.org/offers with a canonical list of "startup-to-startup" (S2S) deals.
Of course it would be differentiated from third-party credits by the likes of GCloud, AWS, Stripe, etc
So has Ycombinator abandoned any hope for VR since he calls it a fake trend in the first five minutes?
Just curious because I swear saw a blog where they want VR startups to apply awhile ago but can't find it now.
Just curious because I swear saw a blog where they want VR startups to apply awhile ago but can't find it now.
No, that is not what he is saying. He is saying that right now there is no "killer app" or major reason to run out to get a VR headset or use VR. I agree with him. There is a lot of advancements in terms of VR hardware but what about the software side of it? Extremely minimal use in terms of software. I think VR won't go mainstream until there is some sort of "killer app" in terms of software that could be run on the VR headsets.
Perhaps that is a sign. If you like VR and think it is the future then think about what that killer app could be and invent it because right now, I don't see any killer app for VR yet. Just lots of ideas floating around but no real product.
Perhaps that is a sign. If you like VR and think it is the future then think about what that killer app could be and invent it because right now, I don't see any killer app for VR yet. Just lots of ideas floating around but no real product.
He is dead wrong if he thinks VR isn't huge in the long-term.
People have been saying that for decades. After spending 10 years in the 3D graphics and VR industries, I just don't see it happening any time soon. The technology, including Oculus, is certainly getting better but it still sucks. It still makes too many people sick. At this point, I am in the "I'll believe it when I see it" crowd.
NCSA had a VR program in the early ‘90’s, and SGI used to demo the Onyx minicomputer with an Apache helicopter simulator on three screens.
Twenty years later people demo slightly cooler things and are disappointed when I’m not excited. I’ve already seen this future. Wake me up when it gets here!
Twenty years later people demo slightly cooler things and are disappointed when I’m not excited. I’ve already seen this future. Wake me up when it gets here!
For me, the motion sickness problem only happens in games where you're moving around freely on the ground like an FPS. If a teleporter is used to move, I'm fine, and for some reason flight sims don't bother me either. It seems like an inherent problem with the tech due to the disagreement between your inner ear and visual cues. Anyone have insight?
Yeah, motion sickness is a non issue at this point for headsets with good 6 DoF tracking as long as you are only doing 1:1 mapped movement (your VR movements match your real world movements). Teleporting is mostly fine but rapid frequent teleporting can still cause some issues. Other forms of locomotion tend to have more issues but some tricks have been developed and best practices figured out to make it viable for many people for reasonably long sessions. Virtual "blinkers" to reduce optical flow in peripheral vision have proved quite effective and are widely used. Pulling yourself through the virtual environment with your hands also seems to work quite well for many people (see Lone Echo for example).
I always thought driving sims would be ideal for VR, since you are sitting still in the simulation as well as the real world, with only the world outside the car moving, you can look around, etc.
Nope, got aggressively nauseous about two minutes in and had to bail in a hurry, or I would have spilled my lunch all over the very nice simulation rig. The lack of inertial forces to match the simulated movement really wreaked havoc on my inner ear.
Nope, got aggressively nauseous about two minutes in and had to bail in a hurry, or I would have spilled my lunch all over the very nice simulation rig. The lack of inertial forces to match the simulated movement really wreaked havoc on my inner ear.
What would you need to see? We have satisfied paying enterprise customers in healthcare (surgical training) and while there are lots of things that will improve with better hardware we have had no issues with motion sickness with hundreds of non-gamer users in this space.
VR ironically might fit the exact definition that he's going for with the iPhone as being a "real trend."
His friends, and many others, definitely have let their headsets catch dust. But there is a core that does use them every day, and probably won't stop any time soon, and it's certainly being put to work in non-gaming use cases.
I think he's being properly cautious, though, using the date as qualifier.
Windows Mobile phones were out for years well before the iPhone was, and were pretty similar in terms of capability and even hardware, but never reached its type of traction.
When it comes down to it, there were only a few key features and a lot of polish (many still argue over how much more polished it really was) which differentiated the iPhone to go on to sell billions, versus competing products from Palm and Microsoft partners to sell a hundredth of that.
Even in retrospect, it's not straightforward to pin the how and why. Back in 2007, it would have been very hard to guess correctly. It's hard to fault people who dismissed the iPhone as being yet another failed mobile project, and also hard to fault people who thought that PocketPC's would revolutionize computing.
His friends, and many others, definitely have let their headsets catch dust. But there is a core that does use them every day, and probably won't stop any time soon, and it's certainly being put to work in non-gaming use cases.
I think he's being properly cautious, though, using the date as qualifier.
Windows Mobile phones were out for years well before the iPhone was, and were pretty similar in terms of capability and even hardware, but never reached its type of traction.
When it comes down to it, there were only a few key features and a lot of polish (many still argue over how much more polished it really was) which differentiated the iPhone to go on to sell billions, versus competing products from Palm and Microsoft partners to sell a hundredth of that.
Even in retrospect, it's not straightforward to pin the how and why. Back in 2007, it would have been very hard to guess correctly. It's hard to fault people who dismissed the iPhone as being yet another failed mobile project, and also hard to fault people who thought that PocketPC's would revolutionize computing.
While I know that gaming will be huge there are several things that I personally can't wait for in VR:
1: social VR movie going experience. Where you put on a headset in the comfort of your own space to watch a movie on release day in VR along with N other people who are experiencing the movie as well for the first time - but you can change which vantage point to view the movie from - either from audience position, or from the perspective of your choosing within the movie; camera, villian, hero, victim, isometric drone etc. Each movie has a finite number greater than 2 vantage points to watch the movie from.
2: out on VR to attend class events as a viewer: lectures at MIT or a concert at Carnegie or Sydney Opera house. On the night of the concert, from the vantage point of a camera hanging about 15 feet above the heads of the IRL audience.
3: a camera stream from a vehicle: formula car, spaceX launch, ISS, airliner.
1: social VR movie going experience. Where you put on a headset in the comfort of your own space to watch a movie on release day in VR along with N other people who are experiencing the movie as well for the first time - but you can change which vantage point to view the movie from - either from audience position, or from the perspective of your choosing within the movie; camera, villian, hero, victim, isometric drone etc. Each movie has a finite number greater than 2 vantage points to watch the movie from.
2: out on VR to attend class events as a viewer: lectures at MIT or a concert at Carnegie or Sydney Opera house. On the night of the concert, from the vantage point of a camera hanging about 15 feet above the heads of the IRL audience.
3: a camera stream from a vehicle: formula car, spaceX launch, ISS, airliner.
VR is overhyped, its use cases are more niche than people are led to believe.
For entertainment, real-estate previews, watching movies together, the experience, learning & simulation, and art modelling its great, but other than that not really. VR social chat is not going to be a big thing, even after gen-Z. People tend to forget what social chat is for, communication. VR just adds no value to that process.
If someone wanted a VR social experience, we've had MMOs for ages. VR social might as well be a VR gaming MMO. It needs to provide a medium to spur social interactions. That market is not very big, although Roblox (10MM average users) would be an interesting market to look at to see where that goes. Your market segment in VR social is going to be smaller than an MMO, which tops at around at 10MM as well. Instagram has 800MM users. Population of america is 300MM+. Put numbers in perspective, its a niche market and won't ever be big. To make a profit, you would have to dump an incredible amount of investment in comparison to making a simple CRUD app. RoI needs to be justified.
VR has already been around for 15+ years, I grew up playing VR games at Disney as a kid. This market is not new. VR is only fun for certain games as well, generally the same games that made Wii and Xbox kinect fun.
Even if VR/AR became entirely portable and seamless, its still not going to have widescale adoption. You can't replace real life.
VR's biggest profit potential is towards small niche groups of people with alot of money to throw around. Much like the mobile game market works, only a few users contribute 90%+ of sales citation needed. Currently, DoD is using VR/AR for leadership & simulation & hypothetical scenario training, because mistakes / setups are expensive and cost lives.
VR gaming will never be a big market until the cost of equipment goes down. And frictionless setup / no context switching. Its still a very high barrier to entry, and a high cost to maintain.
For entertainment, real-estate previews, watching movies together, the experience, learning & simulation, and art modelling its great, but other than that not really. VR social chat is not going to be a big thing, even after gen-Z. People tend to forget what social chat is for, communication. VR just adds no value to that process.
If someone wanted a VR social experience, we've had MMOs for ages. VR social might as well be a VR gaming MMO. It needs to provide a medium to spur social interactions. That market is not very big, although Roblox (10MM average users) would be an interesting market to look at to see where that goes. Your market segment in VR social is going to be smaller than an MMO, which tops at around at 10MM as well. Instagram has 800MM users. Population of america is 300MM+. Put numbers in perspective, its a niche market and won't ever be big. To make a profit, you would have to dump an incredible amount of investment in comparison to making a simple CRUD app. RoI needs to be justified.
VR has already been around for 15+ years, I grew up playing VR games at Disney as a kid. This market is not new. VR is only fun for certain games as well, generally the same games that made Wii and Xbox kinect fun.
Even if VR/AR became entirely portable and seamless, its still not going to have widescale adoption. You can't replace real life.
VR's biggest profit potential is towards small niche groups of people with alot of money to throw around. Much like the mobile game market works, only a few users contribute 90%+ of sales citation needed. Currently, DoD is using VR/AR for leadership & simulation & hypothetical scenario training, because mistakes / setups are expensive and cost lives.
VR gaming will never be a big market until the cost of equipment goes down. And frictionless setup / no context switching. Its still a very high barrier to entry, and a high cost to maintain.
> VR social chat is not going to be a big thing, even after gen-Z. People tend to forget what social chat is for, communication. VR just adds no value to that process.
This is not out experience using VR chat for some of our meetings. We're a fully remote team building a VR product so we're in a somewhat unique position where all our employees have high end VR gear and we have a big need for effective remote collaboration and communication.
A big advantage of VR over voice or video conference calls is being able to see where everyone is looking. This makes for smoother flowing conversations as you're able to look at someone when you pause and want their input. It's a real advantage over video conferencing. This is true even with very primitive avatars that don't reflect any facial expressions. Being able to collaborate around virtual objects in the environment is also useful in some situations, although virtual whiteboards are still quite primitive in most apps. Social VR is a very different experience from an MMO played in a 2D window.
The hardware cost will continue to come down but it's already not a major barrier for many enterprise use cases. Is certainly not a top concern for our customers.
This is not out experience using VR chat for some of our meetings. We're a fully remote team building a VR product so we're in a somewhat unique position where all our employees have high end VR gear and we have a big need for effective remote collaboration and communication.
A big advantage of VR over voice or video conference calls is being able to see where everyone is looking. This makes for smoother flowing conversations as you're able to look at someone when you pause and want their input. It's a real advantage over video conferencing. This is true even with very primitive avatars that don't reflect any facial expressions. Being able to collaborate around virtual objects in the environment is also useful in some situations, although virtual whiteboards are still quite primitive in most apps. Social VR is a very different experience from an MMO played in a 2D window.
The hardware cost will continue to come down but it's already not a major barrier for many enterprise use cases. Is certainly not a top concern for our customers.
Fair point I did not consider VR collaboration and idea incubation for enterprise level applications, where details have a higher priority.
My only counter argument to VR chat for enterprise level applications is four fold:
1. Its synchronous, like any conference call. Async is still going to be the main form of communication (Slack, git issues, email, etc). Synchronous communication has a higher weighting on just communicating ASAP with frictionless joining, since time lost is expensive for any company. That time lost comes from putting on your rift, turning it on, navigating to the meeting, minor details like that etc. It might really be minimal issues at best if your team is used to it.
2. Replaying VR, or even 360* videos. Information hides in a 3D plane as opposed to just everything displayed on a 2D screen. Mostly for people that did not attend the conference video / webinar etc. I don't know about you but I watch many of my videos at 2x playback speed. That would give me nausea
3. The advantages you are getting in VR over a traditional video conference call aren't that high. You would know more here, do you really value facial expressions and social cues over a simpler environment without 3d head set?
4. People remoting in need to have a VR set. That eliminates your coffee shop / travel nomad employee, is he really going to be carrying VR gear around? Of course he can just use chat / video, but still you want your work culture to embrace your ideals.
My counter argument to VR chat to general social everyday use, is primarly to cost / portablility / mass adoption / convenience. But these will get better over time.
It definitely has applications for things with your SO/best friend who lives in a different city, I can definitely see the appeal in that.
...I might have overstated myself here at least on that statement
My only counter argument to VR chat for enterprise level applications is four fold:
1. Its synchronous, like any conference call. Async is still going to be the main form of communication (Slack, git issues, email, etc). Synchronous communication has a higher weighting on just communicating ASAP with frictionless joining, since time lost is expensive for any company. That time lost comes from putting on your rift, turning it on, navigating to the meeting, minor details like that etc. It might really be minimal issues at best if your team is used to it.
2. Replaying VR, or even 360* videos. Information hides in a 3D plane as opposed to just everything displayed on a 2D screen. Mostly for people that did not attend the conference video / webinar etc. I don't know about you but I watch many of my videos at 2x playback speed. That would give me nausea
3. The advantages you are getting in VR over a traditional video conference call aren't that high. You would know more here, do you really value facial expressions and social cues over a simpler environment without 3d head set?
4. People remoting in need to have a VR set. That eliminates your coffee shop / travel nomad employee, is he really going to be carrying VR gear around? Of course he can just use chat / video, but still you want your work culture to embrace your ideals.
My counter argument to VR chat to general social everyday use, is primarly to cost / portablility / mass adoption / convenience. But these will get better over time.
It definitely has applications for things with your SO/best friend who lives in a different city, I can definitely see the appeal in that.
...I might have overstated myself here at least on that statement
I think as a fully remote company doing VR development we're "living in the future" a bit. It's a possible if not inevitable future at least. We use a mix of technologies to enable a remote team working across multiple time zones, some synchronous and some asynchronous: Slack, Zoom, email, Confluence, Jira, GitHub, Google Docs, Dropbox, etc. We also make use of VR: Rec Room, Bigscreen, multi user functionality in our own app, etc. There's no one tool that does everything but VR apps are a useful piece of the puzzle for us.
As I mentioned, we all have high end VR gear and most of us have it at our desks and are already in and out of VR all day as part of our development work. The use case for our project also benefits from us having capable portable setups so yes we do have people joining VR meetings from Starbucks but I don't expect that to be a mainstream thing for a while until the tech improves.
As I mentioned, we all have high end VR gear and most of us have it at our desks and are already in and out of VR all day as part of our development work. The use case for our project also benefits from us having capable portable setups so yes we do have people joining VR meetings from Starbucks but I don't expect that to be a mainstream thing for a while until the tech improves.
Hi there, I work on Hubs at Mozilla and I'd def love to see if you'd be up for seeing how it works for you. You can hit me up at gfodor at mozilla.com. Hubs is here:
https://hubs.mozilla.com
https://hubs.mozilla.com
Thats exactly what he says. In the long term it may be huge, but it's not a big trend now.
I took a "smart phone application development" class in 2005. Nokia donated a bunch of new devices to my University and we collectively implemented half a dozen or so prototype apps. Everybody knew smart phones would be big, and looking back now, the prototypes were highly predictive of where value would be created later (coupons, gaming, photo sharing). But it wasn't until the iPhone came out years later that the market was ready. I think VR is in the same boat. It's hard to know whether the breakthrough device is 2, 5, or 15 years away, but I'm confident we'll know it when we see it.
He said he thinks VR will be huge eventually.
I believe in AR/VR. I don't work in that space but I feel they should start with specialized use cases such as mental health and show value and be nimble about bringing it mainstream. Otherwise it will be a pie in the sky.....
The next sentence after he calls it a fake trend (as of August 2018) is that he believes it will be big someday, but not today.
So a VR startup might be a tough sell right now (tougher than usual) until they think that trend changes from fake to real (if ever) is how I understood what he was saying.
VR is just really bad right now. Every experience either requires a thousand dollars' worth of equipment or it's going to make the user nauscious. The only borderline acceptable experience I've had was a Vive, and that required 2 lighthouses, an HMD, 2 controllers, 400 sqft, and a $2000+ gaming machine -- and I was still tripping over the fucking wires.
Any sub-$100 system is a total joke that no one is going to use for more than a minute. Anything less than $1000 isn't pushing the frame rate or the latency to keep users from vomiting, and even if you don't get sick you're probably constrained to your chair.
It's going to take serious technological advances to get VR into a place where it's fun to use consistently for most people.
IMO, the best place to look for VR opportunities right now is actually in AR/MR. Plenty of enterprise customers interested, frame rate comes second to utility, augmentation means you can actually see what's going on so frame rate doesn't actually matter that much (indeed when I developed for the HoloLens, 30fps was sufficient.)
Any sub-$100 system is a total joke that no one is going to use for more than a minute. Anything less than $1000 isn't pushing the frame rate or the latency to keep users from vomiting, and even if you don't get sick you're probably constrained to your chair.
It's going to take serious technological advances to get VR into a place where it's fun to use consistently for most people.
IMO, the best place to look for VR opportunities right now is actually in AR/MR. Plenty of enterprise customers interested, frame rate comes second to utility, augmentation means you can actually see what's going on so frame rate doesn't actually matter that much (indeed when I developed for the HoloLens, 30fps was sufficient.)
Here is my opinion on VR, what do you think:
I think one of the "killer apps" for VR will be in education. It will be for unique user experiences related to whatever the student is studying. Right now most students learn by lecture, reading books and maybe going online to watch a video on youtube. Well just imagine if you can do activities like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hXlwRlhueE
Now compare that to the lecture, reading books or watching a video. The VR experience is educational, it is interesting, it is fun, it is exciting. When you ask many kids how they feel about school, what do they say? They say it is BORING and I tend to agree with them (based on experience in school). Add in these VR educational experiences and the whole game changes.
Thoughts?
I think one of the "killer apps" for VR will be in education. It will be for unique user experiences related to whatever the student is studying. Right now most students learn by lecture, reading books and maybe going online to watch a video on youtube. Well just imagine if you can do activities like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hXlwRlhueE
Now compare that to the lecture, reading books or watching a video. The VR experience is educational, it is interesting, it is fun, it is exciting. When you ask many kids how they feel about school, what do they say? They say it is BORING and I tend to agree with them (based on experience in school). Add in these VR educational experiences and the whole game changes.
Thoughts?
I like his idea of choosing a startup idea that is in an industry poised for growth and "riding the elevator."
That’s sort of like saying that “buy low and sell high” is clever investment advice.
If I thought I could pick an industry poised for growth I wouldn't be mucking about with index funds.
The trouble often isn't picking the industry but figuring how to make money out of it. Like AI and self driving cars are obviously poised for growth but Google/Alphabet and other large companies are likely to dominate. And a lot of that is already priced into the stocks.
I remember Altman saying an AI for X startup would be a good idea though. I guess Cruise Automation played things well.
I remember Altman saying an AI for X startup would be a good idea though. I guess Cruise Automation played things well.
Actually neither of those things are obvious to me, AI seems over hyped and the head of Waymo has stated that ubiquitous self driving cars are 30 years away. Although perhaps I'm just getting a bit cynical in my old age.
Any source on the 30 year thing? They already have test cars driving around with no one in the front seat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPfC9Yfsjd8&t=2m40s) and it seems there will be both intense competition to grab market share and also a push from regulators to reduce the present 1.25 million road deaths per year.
Ta for the link though that talk was over two years ago and things have moved on. Personally I'd be surprised if it took that long.
- Be raised rich and or be surrounded by the rich/powerful(Elizabeth Holmes, Evan Speigel, etc...)
- Have rich & powerful friends directly or indirectly
- Impress & become friendly with the rich & powerful either through clear data that shows your worth an investment(your startup data shows traction) or lie your butt off; aka fake it before you make it. I always strive(d) for the former as darn my parents and the morality they instilled.
- Have rich & powerful friends directly or indirectly
- Impress & become friendly with the rich & powerful either through clear data that shows your worth an investment(your startup data shows traction) or lie your butt off; aka fake it before you make it. I always strive(d) for the former as darn my parents and the morality they instilled.
The tone of your comment is off, but the underlying point has at least some merit.
Pardon if it comes off jaded, but what I note is very true. I’m in no way trying to impress Sam Altman like i gather some others may be.
No idea his background... yet did he not go to an Ivy League school?
No idea his background... yet did he not go to an Ivy League school?
No, he didn't go to an Ivy League school.
From wikipedia: "studied computer science at Stanford University". Stanford isn't Ivy league? Or is wikipedia wrong?
Stanford is not Ivy League.
Umm in 2015/2016 Stanford's tuition was $46k while Harvard was $45k.
If it's not Ivy League why am I paying more to go there then the hallmark ivy league school?
If it's not Ivy League why am I paying more to go there then the hallmark ivy league school?
Ivy League is a specific name for north eastern universities in a 'sports league'
I would consider stanford a top tier school... but ivy league appears to have a specific definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League#Members
I would consider stanford a top tier school... but ivy league appears to have a specific definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League#Members
This talk is worth more than 2 Millions Medium Articles.
1) Build a product people actually want and need and will pay money for
2) Promote yourself incessantly because others will be promoting themselves even more incessantly.
3) Spend your money wisely - focus on people, product, and marketing. Don't waste your money on office trappings and stuff that makes you feel good. Save your lunch money.
4) Ignore Venture Capital. If you are actually selling something people want, you can grow on revenues. If it takes a lot of money to create what your customers want or if your growth is greater than revenue, then the VCs will want to talk to you anyways. Because a) you're growing and b) customers actually want what you have. But don't start by focusing on what VCs want. Focus on what your customers want instead.
5) Always be selling. To your customers. To the press. To your employees. To anyone who matters. Never stop talking about your company.
6) Always be listening. To your customers. To your employees. The easiest and best ideas come from others.
7) Re-invest. Plow your earnings back into the company and promotion.
8) It's ok not to have a competitive advantage. What? Ok maybe you need to have some advantage but it doesn't have to be nearly as significant as is stated in this video. You need to have some reason for your customers to buy your product or service instead of competitors', so there's always some advantage. It could be price. Features. better service. But it could also be just a better connection with your prospects. Or perhaps you manage to place yourself in the right place at the right time. Or maybe you're just spending a lot on marketing. If you want to be successful, you need to identify at least one FAIR competitive advantage that your customers care about. And if you want to be super successful, identify one UNFAIR competitive advantage that locks out the competition. That could be an exclusive partnership, some intellectual property advantage, or connections with your customers that your competitors can't easily obtain.
This applies no matter if you're running a silicon valley style startup or a cybersecurity enterprise-focused government client startup -- both can make you millions or billions.