Hacker News Reader

Comment by tyre | Hacker News Reader

1) Describe the team and why they're qualified to build a distributed database from the ground up.

2) What is the advantage compared with Postgres + Postgrest[1]? Considerations:

  a) Extensibility (e.g. PostGIS)
  b) Hosting (for large enterprises, cloud database may be a non-starter.)
  c) Stability
  d) Community
  e) Documentation
  f) Security

Databases are scary.[2] As a developer, you would have to convince me that nothing would ever break since I damn sure am unqualified to be monkeying around in that code. As a CEO, you would have to convince me nothing would ever go down and this provides a significant advantage over Postgres. As a technical co-founder, you would have to convince me that you aren't going anywhere and will be able to build a substantial community.

[1]: https://github.com/begriffs/postgrest [2]: That isn't a reason not to do it.

View on HN

I find it interesting that your first question is about why the founders are the right ones to build this and the second is about how it's different than existing solutions.

Usually the idea gets discussed, than the team and competition. I think it is telling that the top comment on this post doesn't need to validate the idea and demand. That alone should count for considering in the YC Fellowship.

A distinction without a difference. Both are things that investors would care about.

Sorry but if this is the first experience the team has with building or maintaining data stores then I would definitely not invest. There is so much to learn from experience.

Having said that, I imagine it's not, so it should be an easy question to answer one would hope.

Of course the questions are important. My only point is that the idea itself seems to resonate really well with the voters on HN, since the questions jump to execution related questions and bypass idea validation questions.

> first experience the team has with building or maintaining data stores then I would definitely not invest.

To that point, while admittedly I don't know enough about building and maintaining data stores, I think it is a mistake to pass on founders because they lack the experience needed to know what they are up against. Often it is that very quality of being too naive to know what they are up against that allows them to take on a massive project and completely change the world or disrupt an industry.

I think the questions are fair and important to answer, I just think that great things are done all the time by people who have no clue what they are doing or up against going into the challenge...as long as they have the perseverance and resourcefulness to deal with whatever gets thrown at them, I would bet on them.

When I have heard YC partners talk about judging companies, they put a heavy emphasis on the founding team. (Their background, how long they have known each other, and why they are the right person to build this product.) So I think it is a perfectly valid question.

Of course it's an important question, but it's rarely the first question. The first question is usually about why the idea is good in the first place. The next line of questioning is about the market opportunity. If you make it through those two lines of questioning, than they figure out if the team is the right team for this project.

I was only pointing out that the idea itself seems to resonate enough with the voters on HN that they don't question the validity of the idea, only the ability of the team to deliver.

Everyone wants a faster, lighter, more energy efficient, and reliable car, am I right?

That's why this comes up.

It simply not as much of a question of is the idea great, it's we have been here before (and if not exactly this idea, there is a lot of overlap with other new databases), and it's quite hard to pull off.

Not everyone can be the tesla of databases, and there is a plethora of new options in the space. So answering this question seems to weigh a bit heavy in the discussion for good reason.

But Elon Musk doesn't have 20 years of experience at Ford. Sometimes, when you are doing something new, it comes from left field.

Brodlist stems from several years of private research with two PhD students (check kayia.org for more details) that was lucky enough to wind up being able to be the Tesla of databases. Most of this is implemented (what's left is mechanical) and I'm happy to do a TDD with HN. I definitely understand your concern and I'm saying I don't know if we qualified to do this job but I can assure you that we qualified by doing this job.

Sure, but Elon Musk is one person. Tesla is a team.

Tesla has hired the brightest minds in the business, _plenty_ coming from years and years and years of deep experience building cars, supply chains, and more.

You can believe that he didn't get funding without having the team in place to build his company, even if he is the fire starter.

Someone might read that and think you're directly arguing that companies shouldn't get funded if they start in a garage. :)

I should have never thought I could try to do something so disruptive and during the long process till now there were many times I wished I could have killed the muse that started it all. It was the hardest thing I've ever done and yet, still, looking back, I don't regret a thing.

I think if you could look at what it took to bring it to this point, you would never doubt if it has what it will take to go the rest of the way.

But it's still early -- I know. A YC Fellowship is for prototype stage companies and that kind of funding isn't for everyone -- I get that. And I get your concern for exactly what it is: concern. It's valid, really, and I appreciate it. But if I could have done the smart thing and walk away, I would have done it a long time ago.

The fact that MongoDB exists and is, despite all good sense to the contrary, still actively adopted by people for various projects belies the idea that stuff is a necessary prerequisite to success.

Your example of MongoDB brings up the most important issue with this company.

As HN users, we're all curious about and focusing on the technology, but the technology doesn't seem to dictate winners and losers.

Mongo "won" (to the extent that it won) because it had some kind of excellent mixture of luck and marketing. How will Brodlist succeed?

I imagine the marketing talent would have to be absolutely incredible.

You're right of course, databases are scary. And they're the foundation of your application so they have to work and always work. We get that.

If you're asking in [2] how it can compete with Postgres on Stability, Community, Documentation, of course it can't yet. Postgres didn't have them when it started either. But the feature set is compelling and if enough people want those features then these signs of maturity will emerge as well.

To answer question [1], I am the technical founder and I presented the core technology as Kayia.org at the Future of Programming Workshop at StrangeLoop a little over a year ago. I wasn't qualified to do this research when I started but after knocking at the right door long enough, it opened. I'm happy to work with HN on TDD.

It's early for Brodlist, yes, and I understand your point about needing certainty but please give us the opportunity to make something you'll both love and know you can rely on.

"We can't compete with Postgres yet, but please fund us anyway and we'll surely figure it out later" is not exactly a compelling plan that makes me want to invest.

I suggest that you need to work out how you plan to compete, at least in general terms, before you ask people for money to do it. "Just trust me" is not going to get you very far.

I didn't say that and I'm starting to not be sure that you're being objective.

The feature set listed above easily beats Postgres by any measure expect maturity. Your question asked how it competes on maturity -- how old is it? It's new. We're applying for the YC Fellowship which funds prototype stage companies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com