NSX2

Well, they could be motivated and interested, but I doubt they have the experience, otherwise they would have, with their resources, started a long time ago.

About the do it better part, a bit harder. They have resources, but if they're just now starting to figure out what to do ... I know exactly what to do, but ... kinda hard to do it. So far it's a draw outcome wise, but they're making nice salaries doing something I like, meanwhile I lose interest in my gig while I spend more and more time doing this as a side project for free.

That might work. If it doesn't, I'll threaten to publish everything online for free, thus negating their own efforts and rendering their money spent into a black-hole of no return.

Or ... Or ... OOOORRR - you just gave me another idea in a way: What if I go up to BigCo and THREATEN to publish it online for free, thus rendering their money spent on research/subsequent patent-based revenue streams completely useless? Just walk up to IBM and say, "I know what you guys researching, here's what you'll discover, now pay up or I'll write a white paper and just put it on the internet ... or mail it to Microsoft or whatever!"

And since the legal departments of most major corporations use game theory in analyzing transactions, their lawyers would easily tell them it's in their favor to pay me what I ask for just to get me to agree to shut up.

That's just crazy enough to possibly work. I wish I could up vote you like 20 times for inspiring this thought.

Well, these are good points. I guess I could do the evangelist part or let someone else do it, but really I think it could speak for itself. As for the article in your link, I could be wrong since I'm not him, but something tells me his reputation had something to do with that "I got my application built for $12,000" equation.

Even if the market hasn't changed yet, I'd say that them devoting brainpower/budgets into looking into it full-time might meand that they, too suspect it may change this way. Quite honestly I can't believe it didn't change this way a long time ago.

> You've made the mistake of believing an idea has value. > It doesn't.

I didn't put much credibility in this line of reasoning before, and now that I found out that major companies are putting millions into just reasearching this idea, I put even less. Crap executed brilliantly is still crap.

> and you can't pay developers to work on your idea

Actually, the money's not the problem. I can raise the money but I'd like to put a demo together as I imagine that would get far better terms. But ultimately if all else fails I'll get the money and hire. My only thought was that I'd prefer to share with a good technical partner that I worked well with than keep a lot and "hire" as you put it.

> In six years you could have learned to program well > enough to build a kickass demo--the fact that you > haven't makes it pretty clear to developers that you > don't believe in your idea enough to commit your own > time to it (other than, apparently, thinking really hard > about it)

In six years I spent most of my personal time single-handedly researching and interacting with something that it's now taking, from what I was told, a starting team of about 15 IBM research guys to just to START looking into. And that part is only half the total idea. They'll never in 10 years get to the second part. When exactly was I supposed to find the time to program on top of this? Not to mention that it wasn't immediately obvious that it would even be feasible. And as for "committing my own time to it" ... I think actively researching it for 6 years is a lot of time to commit to anything, considering I got no financial/academic/professional compensation/recognition.

> ...but you'd be really happy to have someone else commit > time to it and share the results with you.

Share the results with me? So let's see ... I came up with it, spent years researching the feasibility of it, the market is huge, and I have the connections to get financing, and somebody who'd code it would be "sharing the results with me?" Wow. Does it get lonely up there on your pedestal?

You don't have to commit time to it. But that's what startups are about - they're not for everyone, but some people decide, "this is a good thing to commit time to". And they wouldn't be doing it "for me" they'd be doing it for the "results" as you put it, none of which would be possible if I didn't explicity explain what they should be commiting their time to in the first place.

> Hell, with the quality of modern tools, if you started > today, you could have a proof of concept running in a > year

You inspire me! Hell, if I start today, maybe in a year I can learn enough about combustible engines and transmissions to tell my mechanic to shove it.

And in a year I'll be having back surgery. Maybe if I get started today, I can learn enough about the human body and related surgical proceedures to tell my surgeon to go shove it.

Come to think of it, why did I just waste all this money on an Apple computer. I should pocket the money, learn to build my own computer from scratch, and tell Apple to shove it.

Hell, why did I buy these jeans? I should have grown some hemp and made my own pants. That would show Levis!

> in trying to get someone to write your software for you, > for free.

"For me for free" would mean you write it, I keep all the equity and I use the subsequent investment I can get with my personal contacts to pay myself a hefty salary.

I'd imagine there would be some equity exchange and any subsequent investment follow-on would be split, hence it's not "for me" its for themselves.

And since I'm not a programmer and this is not college, it's not "my software" as if though it was a homework assignment or something.

> But, an engineer hears, "I've done nothing but have > super cool ideas for the past six years, and now I'd > like you to implement my vague and over-reaching > specifications into a product, for free, and share the > results with me."

Well, where to start. First, considering all the crap on the internet, I'd say having a really cool idea is a good start. It's better than most people have had so far. As for "my vague and over-reaching specifications" I think you're having a flashback of some bad work experience here. I never gave you any specifications, specific or vague, so I don't know what you're refering to. And I'd imagine it to be a two way street where specifications would be arrived at as a result of communication, continuously, back and forth.

As for the "for free" part, see above. As for the "and share the results with me." part ... well, I'll tell you what. I'll keep my idea and financial contacts to myself, and you can keep all the results you get from not working with me on this idea all to yourself while I keep looking for other people. That way you make all the big bucks all by yourself. Don't spend it all in one place ...

> our best bet is to get a bunch of young college age > programmers to work with you.

Columbia couldn't seem to care less, and the entire NYU structure has so far gotten ... hold your breath ... 2 resumes. Only one of which was remotely relevant, but not experienced enough to take initiative on this.

And since I'm not a programmer, I don't have the experience to provide guidance in that department.

I don't know why, but NY is not very start-uppity at all. People here fantasize about going to work for the IT dept. of Morgan Stanley or something.

If I could find some programmers who won't dismiss my value after I've transferred my insights, I'd gladly do it. But judging from the thinking processes of what I see on posts here ...

Just to give an example, a few days ago a "bored developer" posted a post saying he was looking for good ideas. Whenever I see MBA/Financial-types posting on Hacker News looking for programmers, the response is usually, "Why should I partner with you - what value do you offer since you can't code?"

So I asked a simple question on this post: Suppose I share some ideas with you that you wind up developing. What do you offer in return? I was hoping maybe an arrangement like "I'll code on the weekends for your idea if you share an idea I like enough to pursue" or something. Instead everybody kept downmodding my post; last time I checked it was in the negative something range.

So if I can find people willing to go it on equal terms ...

If I didn't care I think I would have shrugged it off a long time ago. Not trying to do it until recently has been more the result of massive amount of change in this area which I found I just barely kept up with. I just barely got to the point a year ago or so where I had time to reflect and think how this can translate into something useful.

So it was more like 6 years observation and thinking in a sort of real-world lab experiment, and only the last year or so of "apply lessons learned".

But since I'm not a programmer, and most programmers I've come across are working on their own projects, I couldn't figure out exactly how to proceed ... and based on the limited feed back I got, whether it was even worth proceeding or if I was just fooling myself and seeing an oasis.

Plus regardless of whether I cared enough, now that I found this out I realize it's a valid thing to more than just me. So now I care more. It's just been a long, unrewarding (except the intellectual curiosity part), clumsy, guideless trip so far.

My "adult" self tells me to give up and move on, or perhaps profit from it by working for "the man" ... but then again, what if I wind up 10 years ago in a situation where I say, "Dammit - I should have tried for just one more year - but instead I gave up and now look what happened - it took off right after I gave up and somebody else is doing it."

But that's the thing. My life now sucks because I've spent most of my spare time researching this. And progress has been so slow. Friends have drifted away, etc.

If I give up and sell out, at least I'll have a comfy position at a respectable company where people smarter than me would respect what I have to offer because I have 6 years worth of thinking about the problem on them.

But the startup route ... hell I can't even find any programmers to put a demo together ...

I could make a career out of this "there" ... or just keep fumbling in the dark making teeny tiny progress (if any) while my personal/professional life suffers.

I don't know anymore. That's why I posted this, I guess.

Quite frankly the "75" year old me is saying, "Do what you want, but keep in mind you're going to need good health insurance as you grow older."

But what if on the last day of the second year, just as you were about to say, "The hell with this", you found out that people are just starting to look into it? Surely all the insight you gained over the course of your 2 years of trying is useful - question is, what to do with it? Keep plugging away, or "sell out" and go the corporate route?

One of the guys running the project works at an office on Madison Ave. I'd love to start a startup based on this, because I just know it'll be cool, yet I can't say since finding out about this recent development I haven't spent, oh, 5 hours or so since fantasizing about what it would be like to pay off all my credit cards, have health insurance, benefits, etc. and go to work on Madison avenue near Central Park every day.

And instead of arguing with people about the idea, I would be in an environment where people who understand it would appreciate the insights I have. Plus they have a pretty big budget to play with from what I understand.

Just getting paid to do what I've been doing for fun ... and appreciated for once instead of seeing the usual "What the hell are you talking about?" look on people's faces when I've tried to discuss it.

> The try and fail route is more rewarding imho.

I suppose you're right in a way. Maybe both? Maybe, "I've tried, it didn't work out because of timing, but now I can apply my insights and sell out in style!" (?)

How does that make a difference? Let's just say it's something that I know more about than however many PhDs they have looking into it and no matter how smart they are or what their budget is, it will be impossible to replicate the conditions that led to the insights I've gained about why things developed as they did and how to apply it to the business world.

Not saying it's because I'm smarter or anything, it's just a freak accident that resulted from my background and personal interests which came together in some unexpected ways to give me insight into what was worth paying to in this area while most people would have dismissed the whole area as not worth paying serious attention to to begin with.

So - question is:

a) Screw it, it's taking too long

or

b) It may be an uphill struggle but this is a good sign that it's at least worth continuing

So, by that logic people only have something worth saying when they can link to an article where a recognized authority said/wrote it first?

Well, let's say "strongly suggested". But then again in my experience when this is not mandatory there are always 1-2 "I'll stay in and seem extra dedicated" people. Then other people start growing roots at their desks. Then it all falls apart.

Plus think of this way: how many times do you resolve ideas passively in the shower, out on a walk, picking up dry cleaning/doing laundry, out shopping, etc.?

There's a reason that happens and just like exercise, if you don't schedule it, it's easy to let it slide when things get busy.

I'm in NYC. We have Central Park and lots of Barnes & Nobles and Starbucks and stuff like that. If I could get the startup I have in mind going ... which I'm trying to do, just having difficulty finding available tech talent ... hint hint ... I'd have mandatory random blocks of individual "Go out and walk around Central Park for a few hours and distract your conscious mind while your subconscious mind calculates solutions" time and random blocks of group "Go out to Starbucks, get some fresh air and discuss projects outside the office for a change of pace." time.

Also weekly company movie viewings - either outings if something good is playing or good 'ol Netflix.

Our first movie would be Office Space, as a friendly reminder of why starting your own thing is the best thing to do in life.

Sent a message to your blog - or just "emailadrian[@]inbox[.]com"

That just means that those firms are more loyal the the VC funds than to you because that's where they get most accounts from. If I was a VC I'd think any entrepreneur who thinks he has an advantage hiring a firm that I've kept on retainer for a decade is a complete moron. I recall a certain Silicon Valley law firm with the usual "beyond reproach" ... "our reputions are the foundation of our business" stuff ... which at the end of the dot-com boom got into tons of lawsuits when it was discovered that despite "client confidentiality" the partners would pass along information of new startup clients to VCs they knew that invested in competitors.

What do you do? I'm in New York, have a technically simple (not discounting the effort into building it or saying it's easy) idea, and have some contacts in the financial world that can put money into something tangible. My shortcomings are that I don't code, and NYC is full of programmers who are either poseurs and keep coming to "I want to start something" Meetups again and again but never seem to "take that first step" or people rushing to try to get a job at Google or Facebook's NYC offices. So, in conclusion, I'd take "long distance" over face-to-face with people who for whatever reason never seem to understand that "3-5 guys working together without corporate direction from the boss" thing that happens in Silicon Valley on a daily basis.

I think goals and attitudes and personality and a willingness to be flexible are much more important then being close enough to someone to smell them and see their acne.

Well I do recall something to the effect of not being so quick to drop out of school / quit work and starting a startup without giving thought to the overall state of the economy because it was being artificially propped up by various methods. Now the economy's screwed up for, apparently, precisely that. I don't know how you define trolling or whackjob, but I think that was just common sense. People can't be whackjobs if they make unpopular predictions that wind up coming true.

My point exactly. This is one of the more interesting ideas I've come across on Y ... and as you say it's cheap and I bet people can come up with the nuts and bolts relatively easily.

Who's talking about it here? Now compare the top posts at the same time as this and perhaps you can understand what I'm talking about?

And yet, "Do you watch TV" got like, 100+ responses in mere hours ...

I hope this post becomes popular because this is an idea worth at least discussing, if not pursuing.

Bet not too many people will pay attention to it though ...

First, define "value" ... then refer to your own post on "Should Points-Based Ads etc.".

You think it's an interesting idea. I do as well. The poster does. As of now, that's it. Yet that's what I'd expect a lot more on Y.

But so far "is this troll trolling has 2 dozen posts" ... "is t.v. good or bad" attracted PG's attention and the second he comments his army of fanboys instantly add 50 more comments along the lines of "I agree with everything Paul Graham says."

Then new readers see the popularity and get sucked in.

So unfortunately, you could look at thinks like you described above, but something tells me you wish the "Should Popularity-based Advertising" etc. post got as much attention as the "Is T.V. good or bad?" post.

Which I doubt it will. I could be wrong. But I think this time tomorrow you, me and the poster will still be discussing it while everyone is rushing off to make sure everyone knows they agree with whatever post PG just made last.

Honestly when I was refered here I thought most posts would be along the line of the one like Popularity-points advertising, etc.

Creative new ideas meeting with technical talent.

Nah. That would make too much sense. Plus it would take away the top brass's options to censor stuff that users like to talk about because they find interesting, but, say, top people running this don't want to talk about. Or have others talking about.

Like over the summer there was this guy called "Y@mada" who weaved a boring tale of caution and tempering PGs unabashed optimism with some feet on the ground practicality as the economy was going to crash in a major way any second now. Obviously he was wrong because everything is smooth sailing, but PG didn't like this pessimistic world view so despite forums with like, 50-60-70+ posts, eventually the posts would just be deleted / marked "dead", etc.

But try something else. Put up a post like, "Ask YC: Do you sleep on your stomach or on your back, and which do you think is better for an aspiring programmer" and I GUARANTEE YOU that post will be up forever, sparking countless debate.

Well, considering that these day's your VC's law firm probably also represents South American drug dealers and Eastern European arms dealers, not to mention many law firms are in a fit of M&A, so it doesn't really who you've been picking because they'll wind up integrated into some other firm, what is the point of judging somebody by their law firm?

I would say there is one good thing about failure. To paraphrase an observation I've heard about why wrestling is one of the better sports to take up in high school: it teaches you to fight with all you have off of your back when you're literally inches away from defeat and get back up again and again and again as many times as it takes, and that's important because if there's one thing life is good at it's knocking you on your back.

So I would say this: between you and some "I've always had easy successes" entrepreneur in Silicon Valley who's had the benefit of every possible advantage, who do you think learned to conserve energey, restart, take it step by step, stick to simple plans one day at time, shake off the blues, etc. - you, or pretty boy success story?

Now who do you think will keep pushing in the economic funk we'll be experiencing for the next 4-6 years and who do you think will be in shock and quit when they realize that things have suddenly gotten much, much harder?

I'd say your failures have taught you how to function and continue despite setbacks. That is valuable because failures are inevitable. If your "failure overcoming muscle" has atrophied due to experiencing nothing but success, it's going to be very tough times ahead.

If you can deal with failure and keep going, then that means you've proven you have a strong mind - strong enough not to be shaken, strong enough to pick yourself up and keep going despite no constant positive feedback.

If I was a VC, I'd probably invest in you more than somebody who had 3 successes during an economic boom.

Ok. Sorry for being a smartass, I totally didn't see your comment as meaning that at first. From first reading it seemed something some smug prep-school-bred i-banker would say when being dismissive.

My bad.

Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Larry Ellison, and lots of other people known for using their charisma to motivate other seem to be doing ok despite their, "empty fuel tank."

I'm pretty sure PG could build such a thing. You have my blessing. If it works out for you guys you can make even by hooking me up with some programmers.

I could see adpinion and clickfacts possibly going somewhere to an extent ... though only because I don't know enough about advertising to figure out if they won't be able to get lots of customers

I can't help but notice, though, that clickfact's management team seems to be around PG's age so I wouldn't call it a pure Y Combinator thing based on the premise of Y Combinator as I understand it.

From my understanding, Y has so far been involved in about 80 startups or so.

Name 1 that provides a benefit people care enough to pay for.

... ... ... ...

But if what you said is true, ie, that programmers are "more honest in terms of what we think users want", shouldn't you be able to point to a lot of things?

If it's true that "We put out a rough approximation of what we think they want and let them guide us", how come nobody seems to be guiding anybody towards an offering people are willing to pay for?

Or do you guys just think you're "more honest" and "empathetic" when in reality you may be very, very far from the reality of what people actually want enough to pay for?

Okay, let's leave Google out of this for a moment. My emphasis was that the transition from "startup" to "business" seems to happen when you connect with paying customers.

I even posted a post to this effect where I basically summed up the most interesting part (for me) of a marketing book:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=127157

In order to have a clear value proposition to get people to give you their money, you need to answer (according to the book) these questions in succession of difficulty:

Who you are / what you do / for who / because they need what thing that they can't do without you / unlike your competitors / your different in what way / which is a very important distinction (how?) and makes people care (why?).

I'd say most startups start with "who they are" and stop. Some make it to "what they do" although not expressed clearly. The part about "for who" and "why they care" never seems to be spelled out, just implied or something.

The first response is by some guy who took this as both a personal attack and an attack on the whole Y Combinator community!

Then PG comes on and says, "well such and such venture capitalist says he funds business that solve a problem the founders had."

I try to point out that that only holds true as long as that problem is one a huge market of people are also having and are willing to pay for the resolution of.

Then, in a rather futile and pointless exercise, he goes on to systematically knock about 30 points off my all-time high of 80, perhaps under the delusion that I secretly covet a high point tally so I can impress him or something.

It's like, the very mere suggestion that people need to tie their technical ability to practical solution solving for paying customers, especially in this economic climate, seems to meet with rage and fury from programmers who seem to take basic economic reality like a personal insult or something.

> "Make something people will want", since people don't > always know what they want.

That would need perspective and ability to anticipate possible patterns of future development, ability to assign probabilities to multiple scenarios, etc.

All "right brain stuff". Most programmers I've come across, especially here, couldn't seem to care less as long as they post their startup and score points from peers.

Perhaps you're aware that these days VCs are exponentially more likely to invest in you if you have paying customers than if you have a solution you think is interesting but nobody else agrees with you enough to pay you for it.

And I think Ebay was actually making money and showing a clear proof of concept before it got funding. Google began during a period of collective insanity; I doubt they'd be able to raise a penny with a similar starting proposition today.

Cisco I have no idea about.

But as for "all others", not sure what you mean but Microsoft, for example, was making money as a private company before getting VC to help with the IPO process, and the terms they got investment on a clear indication of their cash-based negotiating leverage at the time.

Oracle if memory of my reading serves correctly was making money first.

SAP had paying customers ...

When you say, "almost all other big tech companies" started off with VC as a prerequisite, can you specify what you had in mind?