Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This article supposes a competition. Why is it a competition if the essence of creating a startup is creating wealth? If more companies get off the ground, then more total wealth will be created. The more startups that are created, then the more total wealth will be created. Startups are the antithesis of a zero sum game.

And, if YCombinator is starting startups, then it is a wealth creation machine. How will that be "beat" or competed against?

Also, I don't get the impression from PG that YC is out to dominate the startup market. I do get the impression that they started YC because it was an irresistible hack. That is, they set out to hack the economics of startup creation. And, if another entity comes out and has a greater success ratio, or greater volume of startups created, then I daresay that it is an ultimate success of PG and crew. Why?

Because the hack worked.



Dang it, I fell in to the trap (again) of not distinguishing my opinions from a summary of the opinions I've read on the web. You'd have a hard time finding a bigger fan of the "wealth creation" view than me, but most people don't think that way.

I'm sure many (most?) investors and observers think there are a fixed number of potential successful startup founders and that if YC gets all the good ones, then there will be none left. pg takes the opposite approach, trying to grow the pool of founders through his writing and community efforts. His anti-job, anti-BigCo essays are eye openers to a lot of people (myself included) who had never thought there was another way.

pg is definitely not out to dominate the market - I pointed out that he purposely ignores a large part of the market to focus on the niche he's interested in.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: