I remember people saying things like this in the first few years but it's surprising to encounter it now.
If people who think we're in the business of grooming startups for HR acquisitions stopped to do the math, they'd realize we'd be acting against our own interests if we focused on that. Essentially all the returns in startup investing (for us as for any investor) come from the big successes. Whereas we often make zero from early acquisitions.
Ok, I'll bite Mr. Corporation Replacer. Where does the long-term R&D investment come from?
Microsoft Research alone outspends Y Combinator by a factor of 50,000,000. And they're thinking 10+ years out. Money aside, their internal expertise and contact network far exceeds "the guy who made Django."
Kudos for what you've done, but when you start talking this way I feel obligated to point out that you're a grain of sand on the beach compared to the Fortune 50--or even CMU/Berkeley/MIT.
You're doing something totally different. Own it. Say what you're for, not what you're against. Say what you're building, not what you're killing.
The fact that people who interview you keep painting you into these corners means that the general public still doesn't understand what's going on with YC. Less hyperbole, more concise vision. Your essays often achieve this, your PR should too.
Microsoft Research was founded in 1991, 16 years after Microsoft itself was founded in 1975 (1, 2). Y Combinator was founded in 2005, 30 years after Microsoft. So I'd be surprised if with a 30 year head start Microsoft didn't have more long-term R&D investment, for pretty much any definition one chooses.
Much of what he does may eventually filter down to the rest of the company, but there's a real risk that some of it won't, or that it'll be picked up by someone outside of Microsoft, etc...
How does that sort of thing work out with a number of small companies networked together?
While Etherpad is somewhat research-y, it is a product. The difference between Etherpad and what SPJ does is about as big as between a mathematician working on car collision simulation and one working on abstract algebra.
Dunno, Paul. While SPJ does have a lot of relevance to current computing, his work is not a product like Etherpad was. I haven't seen YC companies moving towards or staying with fringe languages -- not that I criticize that business decision.
Maybe the YC model will reach that "how will we be computing in 10 years" phase at some point. But (perhaps with good reason?) it does not seem to be there yet.
Etherpad came and went pretty quickly though, at least in its initial incarnation - correct? Simon has been at Microsoft for quite a while. You can certainly do interesting things in a brief period, but some stuff requires just requires more time/capital/materials.
I think a startup is pretty much 100% R&D. It's just not pure research.
Maybe you can't build a fusion reactor on a YC-style seed investment, but Etherpad, AirBnB, and Reddit have done more for my life than fusion research has, so far.
That's too bad. I mean, yes, MSR is notorious for being a black hole for great talent. But look at PARC. They innovated the next 40 years yet didn't really ship any of it. Personally, I spent 15 years on my own research without knowing how to productize it until the end, and it needed all of that time.
You, personally, were able to innovate and productize immediately, but that's not the norm. For most people the choice comes down to: Do you want a nice car or you want to change the world?
Big successes and sustainable businesses aren't necessarily the same thing. This is an important distinction because a sustainable business is a viable option for many, and "big success" isn't. And the biggest ones are going to leapfrog such schemes anyway. It's like American Idol for programmers. What you're doing is interesting, but it's questionable whether it's promoting the right values.
Seems more like the big goal is to become a big success in their own right. If that doesn't come about then either a fairly big exit or a talent acquisition is much better for all parties than calling it quits.
If people who think we're in the business of grooming startups for HR acquisitions stopped to do the math, they'd realize we'd be acting against our own interests if we focused on that. Essentially all the returns in startup investing (for us as for any investor) come from the big successes. Whereas we often make zero from early acquisitions.