Wow! YC seems to be looking for the OPPOSITE things that other investors (VCs!) are looking for. I didn't read the whole list, but of the things you mentioned, I'm pretty amazed. YC has been around for a while which leads me to believe that they know what they're doing and have made solid investment decisions in the past. But,are you kidding me? First, who's going to compete w/Microsoft. You gotta have some big muscles (and funding) to do that, and I doubt YC could provide that kind of capital. Besides, if google and adobe are in that space, how is a startup going to catch up?
In terms of Social Networking and Photo Sharing site.....really? Do we really need more of those? Is YC the only investor in the world that is still interested in these? Try pitching a social network or photo sharing site around the valley and see what happens. Even if you're a startup and you have social network, it's wise not to put yourself in the social networking category.
Has YC gone mad?
PaulGlazowski
· 1 year ago
I think it's about introducing ideas. Kind of like a "who knows...maybe" type of solicitation.
warren_s
· 1 year ago
@Gavroche:
Call me cynical, but it seems to me the question YC is asking isn't "who's going to compete w/Microsoft", it's "who's going to develop a feature attractive enough that Microsoft will want to buy and integrate it, rather than build their own."
Same for many of those suggestions where there is already an established player. It's all about building a new killer feature, and getting bought out to integrate that feature into an established product. Everything else is just window-dressing to get the feature noticed.
Neyma Jahansooz
· 1 year ago
In defense of YC...
They are fishing. And we know that the only way to catch fish is to...go fishing.
They are throwing their net wide to stimulate ideas and see what comes in and filter from there.
PaulGlazowski
· 1 year ago
Absolutely. I'm simply rebutting some of their public suggestions :)
Neyma Jahansooz
· 1 year ago
Without excluding my earlier comments - I do actually agree with your rebuttals except for the Wikipedia part.
The Wiki model - though magnificent in many aspects also has 3 critical flaws.
1 - The fact that information is highly - almost overly editorialized (sterilized to consensous) on some subjects 2- Ridiculously biased on other subjects - meaning that sometimes its not the facts but the dominant editor groups/arguments that get the page 3 - At other times the front line battle of edit wars which can leave a web surfer who comes in at the wrong 5 miuntes with a skewed view of the subject. Even one usermis-informed by an 'Encyclopedia' is not acceptable for the 'authority' that they claim.
That all being said - these critical flaws leave a gaping (yet not visible to most) hole in the market where the correct startup with the correct angle can approach and claim that authoritative slice of the pie. now where did I put my startup...... Hmmmm/
Garry Tan
· 1 year ago
At the end of the day, innovation happens in places even when there are established competitors. The canonical example is Google. Yes, AltaVista was good. You could find people who expressed the same adulation of AltaVista that you find now with Google.
But nobody reigns forever. Rome falls. The advantages of being small and agile can't be understated.
PaulGlazowski
· 1 year ago
I don't know if Altavista was good. For it's time, perhaps. But Google beat it because it was better. (And because its name caught on in a viral way.) I don't see any search engine that's definitely better than Google, which catalogues the same amount of link data. And now that Google is supported by the largest ad network on the Web, you've got a two-punch thing that kind of solidifies its position.
It's not that other search services can't exist. I just dispute Paul Graham's assertion that something designed well will have the chance to supplant Google in the field. That's quite far fetched.
Tony Wright
· 1 year ago
Regarding Google and design... It's interesting to look at what clever UX design did in the mobile space with the iPhone.
Google's search UX is simple (and that's good), but there is certainly room for innovation. Of course, unlike other types of innovation it's hard to imagine how a UX could be improved until you actually see it and say, "holy crap-- it never occurred to me that a touch-screen with this crazy 'pinch' idea could turn the mobile world on it's ear."
PaulGlazowski
· 1 year ago
Oh, I'm a big fan of the iPhone. I own one, first-generation. But I don't believe the multi-touch screen is necessarily the best option. Physical buttons have their benefits. The iPhone sometimes requires the user to really concentrate on what he/she is doing. Other phones allow for more casual, simpler use.
ken
· 1 year ago
What exactly does Ask.com have to do with good design? A "Skins" popup on the front page? "Peel me"? "AskEraser"?
I have trouble associating the words "good design" with a search engine that has a bunch of crap I neither want nor understand right on the front page.
I guess it might be OK if their search results or map software or whatever were great, but they're also worse than Google here.
When he says beating Google in the design arena, I don't think he means "worse at everything but with drop-shadows and round-rectangles".
PaulGlazowski
· 1 year ago
Ask.com is actually well designed, I think. Search for a band, and you're probably returned a page full of things like bio, history, plus music clips and things. It's more all-in-one than Google is. The skins are hardly part of the equation.
swombat
· 1 year ago
Guys, come on, YC doesn't mean that a search engine needs to have a better design than Google - pg means that Google currently ignores the design content of the pages it indexes, and that a start-up could one-up Google by figuring out a way to factor in design along with all the other components of search, based, perhaps, on some theory that certain kinds of design generally result in better search results than others. That could also be used to filter out spammers.
PaulGlazowski
· 1 year ago
Actually, I think Graham means that exactly. The quoted text really explains it. There's a bit of wiggle room for "technical" design, but for the most part, I think he just finds that another search engine could more to be a more attractive, more full-featured item.
Fays
· 1 year ago
Actually Google is hard working on improving the design of its search engine. You could activate the experimental search features, which are first steps in getting a better design.
Of course, it is still a model of sobriety but they're working on, and it's not that easy, believe me to combine design excellence with efficiency.
All Comments
In terms of Social Networking and Photo Sharing site.....really? Do we really need more of those? Is YC the only investor in the world that is still interested in these? Try pitching a social network or photo sharing site around the valley and see what happens. Even if you're a startup and you have social network, it's wise not to put yourself in the social networking category.
Has YC gone mad?
Call me cynical, but it seems to me the question YC is asking isn't "who's going to compete w/Microsoft", it's "who's going to develop a feature attractive enough that Microsoft will want to buy and integrate it, rather than build their own."
Same for many of those suggestions where there is already an established player. It's all about building a new killer feature, and getting bought out to integrate that feature into an established product. Everything else is just window-dressing to get the feature noticed.
They are fishing.
And we know that the only way to catch fish is to...go fishing.
They are throwing their net wide to stimulate ideas and see what comes in and filter from there.
The Wiki model - though magnificent in many aspects also has 3 critical flaws.
1 - The fact that information is highly - almost overly editorialized (sterilized to consensous) on some subjects
2- Ridiculously biased on other subjects - meaning that sometimes its not the facts but the dominant editor groups/arguments that get the page
3 - At other times the front line battle of edit wars which can leave a web surfer who comes in at the wrong 5 miuntes with a skewed view of the subject. Even one usermis-informed by an 'Encyclopedia' is not acceptable for the 'authority' that they claim.
That all being said - these critical flaws leave a gaping (yet not visible to most) hole in the market where the correct startup with the correct angle can approach and claim that authoritative slice of the pie. now where did I put my startup...... Hmmmm/
But nobody reigns forever. Rome falls. The advantages of being small and agile can't be understated.
It's not that other search services can't exist. I just dispute Paul Graham's assertion that something designed well will have the chance to supplant Google in the field. That's quite far fetched.
Google's search UX is simple (and that's good), but there is certainly room for innovation. Of course, unlike other types of innovation it's hard to imagine how a UX could be improved until you actually see it and say, "holy crap-- it never occurred to me that a touch-screen with this crazy 'pinch' idea could turn the mobile world on it's ear."
I have trouble associating the words "good design" with a search engine that has a bunch of crap I neither want nor understand right on the front page.
I guess it might be OK if their search results or map software or whatever were great, but they're also worse than Google here.
When he says beating Google in the design arena, I don't think he means "worse at everything but with drop-shadows and round-rectangles".
Of course, it is still a model of sobriety but they're working on, and it's not that easy, believe me to combine design excellence with efficiency.