Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #6823 > unrolled thread

Microsoft Altair BASIC and crap ideas

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Microsoft Altair BASIC and crap ideas RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-02-26 11:41 +0000
    Re: Microsoft Altair BASIC and crap ideas Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-27 15:50 -0800

#6823 — Microsoft Altair BASIC and crap ideas

http://paulgraham.com/altair.html

February 2015

One of the most valuable exercises you can try if you want to
understand startups is to look at the most successful companies and
explain why they were not as lame as they seemed when they first
launched. Because they practically all seemed lame at first. Not just
small, lame. Not just the first step up a big mountain. More like the
first step into a swamp.

A Basic interpreter for the Altair? How could that ever grow into a
giant company? People sleeping on airbeds in strangers' apartments? A
web site for college students to stalk one another? A wimpy little
single-board computer for hobbyists that used a TV as a monitor? A new
search engine, when there were already about 10, and they were all
trying to de-emphasize search? These ideas didn't just seem small. They
seemed wrong. They were the kind of ideas you could not merely ignore,
but ridicule.

Often the founders themselves didn't know why their ideas were
promising. They were attracted to these ideas by instinct, because they
were living in the future and they sensed that something was missing.
But they could not have put into words exactly how their ugly ducklings
were going to grow into big, beautiful swans.

Most people's first impulse when they hear about a lame-sounding new
startup idea is to make fun of it. Even a lot of people who should know
better.

When I encounter a startup with a lame-sounding idea, I ask "What
Microsoft is this the Altair Basic of?" Now it's a puzzle, and the
burden is on me to solve it. Sometimes I can't think of an answer,
especially when the idea is a made-up one. But it's remarkable how
often there does turn out to be an answer. Often it's one the founders
themselves hadn't seen yet.

Intriguingly, there are sometimes multiple answers. I talked to a
startup a few days ago that could grow into 3 distinct Microsofts.
They'd probably vary in size by orders of magnitude. But you can never
predict how big a Microsoft is going to be, so in cases like that I
encourage founders to follow whichever path is most immediately
exciting to them. Their instincts got them this far. Why stop now?

-- 
RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com
Posting to comp.misc, sci.misc, and misc.news.internet.discuss.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#6852

On 2015-02-26 11:41:48 +0000, RS Wood said:

> http://paulgraham.com/altair.html
> 
> February 2015
> 
> One of the most valuable exercises you can try if you want to
> understand startups is to look at the most successful companies and
> explain why they were not as lame as they seemed when they first
> launched. Because they practically all seemed lame at first. Not just
> small, lame. Not just the first step up a big mountain. More like the
> first step into a swamp.
> 
> A Basic interpreter for the Altair? How could that ever grow into a
> giant company? People sleeping on airbeds in strangers' apartments? A
> web site for college students to stalk one another? A wimpy little
> single-board computer for hobbyists that used a TV as a monitor? A new
> search engine, when there were already about 10, and they were all
> trying to de-emphasize search? These ideas didn't just seem small. They
> seemed wrong. They were the kind of ideas you could not merely ignore,
> but ridicule.
> 
> Often the founders themselves didn't know why their ideas were
> promising. They were attracted to these ideas by instinct, because they
> were living in the future and they sensed that something was missing.
> But they could not have put into words exactly how their ugly ducklings
> were going to grow into big, beautiful swans.
> 
> Most people's first impulse when they hear about a lame-sounding new
> startup idea is to make fun of it. Even a lot of people who should know
> better.
> 
> When I encounter a startup with a lame-sounding idea, I ask "What
> Microsoft is this the Altair Basic of?" Now it's a puzzle, and the
> burden is on me to solve it. Sometimes I can't think of an answer,
> especially when the idea is a made-up one. But it's remarkable how
> often there does turn out to be an answer. Often it's one the founders
> themselves hadn't seen yet.
> 
> Intriguingly, there are sometimes multiple answers. I talked to a
> startup a few days ago that could grow into 3 distinct Microsofts.
> They'd probably vary in size by orders of magnitude. But you can never
> predict how big a Microsoft is going to be, so in cases like that I
> encourage founders to follow whichever path is most immediately
> exciting to them. Their instincts got them this far. Why stop now?

I have often thought that web 2.0 is nothing but a bunch of crappy, 
proprietary, resource-hungry clones of the tools that were commonplace 
on a multi-user Unix system circa 1995.  If you want to be the next 
tech billionaire, figure out what hasn't been cloned yet and clone it.  
Make sure you have an idiotic name and contempt for your users though - 
those seem to be the ultimate determining factors for success in the 
web 2.0 world.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web