freshfunk

Recently I had a physical with a doctor in the area (bay area) who said he knew the personal doctors of senior management at Google. Apparently, many of them are "hypochondriacs." I guess it makes sense that once you no longer worry about money, you worry about your health obsessively.

1. Polish.

2. Funny storyline/characters.

3. Simple. Can get in and out. Can play for 1 minute or 30 minutes.

4. You can play the same level over and over and it's different every time due to the mechanics of destroying things that have their own physical properties. It's hard enough to get you to try again but not so difficult that you're driven away.

Points 1 and 2 are what I would call The Draw. They bring you in.

Points 3 and 4 and what I would call The Keeper. They bring you back.

This is why I think it's a good game. There are lots of good games that aren't popular. The reason why it's popular probably has more to do with word-of-mouth advertising and then media coverage. There are probably a high number of addicts (myself included) that go on to evangelize the game to other device owners.

Lol. Wow. I guess I officially had burnout. Not surprising, really, since I knew it myself when I finally hit the wall (but not the lead up).

I'm an entrepreneur and I've been working at my startup for a year. I stopped exercising (partially due to a long term sports injury I was recovering from) and I was heads down on my project full time. After some cofounders didn't work out, I resolved to work harder.

Oh yeah did I mention I was having a kid and looking to move? ;P Sure ingredients for burnout.

I thought I could be Superman. I think adversity would only make me stronger. It did but it broke me down before it built me up.

It culminated with the move and then the kid. After we moved, I spent about a month not working, not reading TechCrunch, and removed myself from most hardcore tech activities. I spent it renovating the house for the kid. It was still stressful but my mind rested from the startup.

At this time I started exercising again. I was out of shape but my injury recovered enough to do sports again.

I then had my child. And while it was a new addition in my life that required a certain amount of time there was a certain (re)birth in my desire to restart/continue my startup.

Now I'm working harder than ever and motivated. Yes, it's tough and when I think about all the ways my startup can go down in a ball of flames (or a whimper) it gets stressful. But the other 90% of the time I'm really excited and can't wait to work more.

The ultimate lesson, as stated below, was balance. The startup ended up being a longer haul than I thought. Like Mark Suster says, you can't ignore health and family as those two things are things you can't get back once they've left. They also have a way of keeping personal morale up which helps you continue your arduous journey.

I'm working as hard as before but setting aside personal time without feeling guilty about it. I find myself happier and working more efficiently.

I'm glad this was pointed out. Doing a startup is definitely like doing a dance. You have to know when to step forward, and when to step sideways and when to step back. Do it at the wrong time and you'll end up in pain.

I know people who give up too quickly on an idea and I know people who stayed too long on an idea. The problem is usually that it's never so binary as to quit or keep going. It's easy to end up in a situation where you've spent 6 months or a year building a product. Over that next year you convince yourself that that NEXT feature is all that's needed for your product to explode. In the meantime you have a handful of users that give you validation that there's value to the idea.

A/B testing would be great but there's also a saying that A/B optimization too early is also a mistake. Time could be better spent understanding product-market fit.

Perhaps, more important than this was mentioned in the blog post:"spend a lot of your time thinking about customer acquisition (for me it's ~50%). Only very rarely will they come on their own early on."

NoSQL vs RDBMS is really a proxy war for Denormalized vs Normalized storage.

You can take a system like Cassandra and treat data very much in a normalized way which would reduce performance. You can take a system like MySQL and completely denormalize your data which would increase performance.

Any test where one set of data is normalized and one isn't is not a fair test.

Also, denormalization can be a big deal. Unless you have some sophisticated code managing it for you, you're trading performance for data storage management complexity. Now you have to manage many instances of data X. But there is a benefit in that you avoid crazy joins.

I think both have concepts to learn from each other. For example, in order to use a NoSQL option effectively, you end up implementing your own concept of indexes, something very easily done for you in RDBMSes.

Exactly. I think YC's process works for YC. But I wanted to make that counterpoint about VCs/angels and batting avgs in the context of this thread so that people don't infer that because they didn't get YC they will likely not get angel or VC money.

Yeah. Well I take it with a grain of salt I guess.

Anyway, I saw Siqi's response and it seems pretty legit.

Yeah I mean I face this issue too and it can go both ways.

I've talked to other potential founders who like my idea and would want to participate as a side project. But I've been loathe to do that. Initially I thought more help would be better but as I started working on it, it just seemed like it would be a logistical nightmare. Also, PG has some words with people working part time which mostly were not good and I totally agreed with his points.

It's a double-edged sword though. It's infinitely easier to find someone who will work part time on your idea than be committed to it.

Good point.

Maybe what happened was that he didn't know whether they'd get in YC or not so was OK with being part of the application.

Then they found out they got in and he realized he had to make a decision between the two projects and it took him one week to make that decision.

Seems like everything was fair and transparent among them.

Reputation saved.

Sweet. Add yourself to the RSVP as further discussion will continue there.

More like treacherous business. (Sorry, I could not resist.)

That sucks.

Oddly enough I actually know (well, actually met) Siqi back in the day when he was at Powerset. It's interesting to hear this kind of story.

Go figure. :\

Agreed but it's a rhetorical point. Fact is that 90% of the people applied feel the same way and a good percentage are probably just as smart and motivated as you (if not more so). If you went to a top tier school and majored in something the school is good at, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

I thought about it more and I think it's better that YC doesn't give more feedback other than "no."

Think about it. Let's say they said, "Your team was too weak." What's the result of that going to be? It's going to be ugly and messy.

What if they said, "Your idea is too weak." Then you'd probably email PG yourself on why your idea is not weak with the following proof why. Same goes if he said there's no market for it.

Basically anything they say can result in a lot of backlash and the blame game when maybe the reason was that it was a little bit of everything.

I definitely intend on continuing development on my projects. If you're a YC reject and want to join the community of rejects in moving forward, I'm putting together a group (in SF).

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1191553

Hmm don't know. With all due respect to PG and crew, VCs and angels seem to do their homework as well. Actually their initial filters are probably much more restrictive so I guess it would depend on how you calculate the batting avgs.

How did you come to the conclusion that the application was done lightly? That's a big assumption.

I also respect PG and YC crew but I don't take a "no" as being so definitive as you do, I guess. There could be many reasons as he states in whynot. Maybe you don't have the right team. Maybe they couldn't see the vision in your answers. Maybe they didn't see the market.

All 3 of those maybes are subject to change imo. In between applications, your team could've changed. The vision might have become more clear with new news from the industry. Perhaps the market is becoming more apparent due to players entering the market.

I think the "one and done" attitude is more likely to be detrimental. Just because you try more than once doesn't mean you're doing it lightly.

"Tom, whats frustrating for me is I feel like my partner and I exhibited all those attributes. We don't think its the team, we know our team is strong. So it must be the idea: they aren't getting it."

I bet you 90% of the YC rejects feel this way. I mean, really, what makes you think you're different from anyone else?

The point isn't that you're the same. The point is that you have you consider that everyone is putting their best foot forward and has the confidence in themselves and their idea to try out for this program.

Maybe they didn't get it... but then I'd say that's more your fault than theirs. You have to be able to convey your idea as easily and simply as possible.

OK here's the event.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=401254911062

I want to see if there's a critical mass of people interested in my nearby area and then I will create the event.

I like your attitude Daniel. Keep on truckin'!

(Frankly, I have qualms working with anyone who still uses hotmail... haha jk.)

I'm with Daniel.

If you only try things you think have a high probability of success, then you're probably not going to embark on being an entrepreneur period. The percentages of success are very low.

Applying to YC was fairly easy and didn't take much time. There's really only upside to it. The only downside is your ego when you're rejected and the remote chance that your idea/startup would be undervalued.

I also disagree with your final notion that YC is THE yardstick for success. If you read their "whynot" post, it's obvious they go through very many applications and really your idea could be skimmed and rejected quite easily. Also, the companies that have come out of YC haven't ALL been successful (no discredit to those that have been).

Lastly, at such an early stage I think entrepreneurs are always thinking through changes in business/people/idea. That's just the nature of the beast whether YC accepted you or not.

Part of being a successful entrepreneur is being tenacious. If you fold at the first sign of opposition, I doubt you'll get far.

I don't know this person's particular case but it's possible that he made significant progress on his idea between submissions.

I had 0 questions so consider yourself loved. :)

I was denied ("rejected" sounds so harsh :)). But I'm still moving forward with my idea.

I'd love to meet up with other YC rejects who are looking for a support group-- I mean people to share ideas with. :)

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1191553

I'm located in SF. I'm sure there are lots of bright people also looking to partner with others to form a great team.

The typical argument is that China cannot resist the money. But, to be a devil's advocate here, perhaps they think that it's MORE risky to their business to stay in China. That is, someone was trying to steal their technology. If someone got their hands on their secret sauce algorithms that would surely put the business, as a whole, at risk considering it's their one real moneymaker.

I've always heard of fail fast in the sense that Eric Ries and Steve Blank talk about it: Get your product in front of customers as soon as possible. Iterate.

Don't hole up and build your grand ideas for 1 year before anybody sees it and gives you feedback because you're afraid to fail.. fast.

But Suster seems to be talking about a different things. It's like corporate types taking a product development methodology and applying it to running a company. That's frightening!

Having a fulltime job and doing your project outside of it is like sticking a dagger into the heart of your idea. If it's a great idea, someone is likely working on a solution (sorry, but there are other smart/creative people out there).

I know people who try to work part-time. But part-time does not == 50%. From what I've seen, it looks more like 25%. Those part time jobs have a way of encroaching more and more into your life. PG has wise words on one of his essays about this.

Working full time on an idea, gives a great sense of fulfillment and you can make great progress on a day to day basis. The downside is that it's easy to fall into a vacuum where you're isolated from the world. If you take a day off and slack, there's no one who's going to fire you. The downside of that is that you really have to manage your time yourself and be good about it.

If you have experience managing yourself to a daily schedule and also managing yourself to a roadmap/sprint/plan then you can do well.

In terms of bills, really most people have more money than they think. At least that's my opinion. I think the average person who saves some and has worked for a few years has some money saved up. If you haven't been working for long then you're probably used to living on a shoestring budget. If you can deny yourself all the things you don't really need in life, your money will go a long way.

Lastly, get out! Don't just work from home all the time. Work from a cafe or the library. Meet up with friends.. esp any who may be in the same situation as you. Get out. Exercise. Take breaks!

Oh another last thing. Doing your company really takes much longer than you anticipate. It's a marathon, not a sprint. So make sure you take care of yourself in the process. It's too easy to become a workaholic and let everything else (health, relationships) go to waste.

My thoughts exactly.

When you're out of college, you're used to living on a shoestring budget. You can get by without quite little because you haven't really raised your standards of living around a big salary.

When you've worked for a few years, you've likely saved up a decent amount of cash (unless you live a life filled with consumption). You may have to cut back on all the perks but you can still get by.

Most of the people I know who want to start a company don't want to risk their current cash flow. Yet all of them have been working long enough where they've likely saved up enough money to go a long time without making money and be ok. I think the only thing is that people raise their standards of living (more expensive rent, big car payments, high rent/mortgage) such that they feel they must continue to make their current salary in order to "survive."