I think one of the more interesting aspects to this is how much PG has followed his own advice with YC. i.e. he made something people (founders) wanted with YC.
That allowed him to craft the entire experience around what is good for founders which worked out to be great for others (including investors and acquirers).
So much so that this advice he is giving, I am sure many other investors have wanted to give publicly before - but they don't want to piss off people who can provide an exit for their portfolio. The whole fiduciary responsibility thing.
But YC companies are encouraged to think of things quite differently - so much so that even if someone as might as Google (who PG pointed out) thumbed it's nose at YC companies to spite PG....they would be much worse off, because of the quality of companies coming out of YC.
That is the power of seeing "make something people want" to it's natural, logical conclusion.
Being able to say and do what you want, to force behaviour change in an industry to benefit your organization and your goals.
This is also why PG is so well respected by those of us on the outside looking in, is because we see the sheer audacity of him giving blunt advice, about specific tactics that only benefit founders. Even if it may hurt him temporarily.
Thanks again for constantly doing this PG. We appreciate it.
> It's usually a mistake to talk to corp dev unless (a) you want to sell your company right now and (b) you're sufficiently likely to get an offer at an acceptable price. In practice that means startups should only talk to corp dev when they're either doing really well or really badly
If you're sure you want to sell, and are convinced you'll get the price you want, talk to them. Actually, that second qualifier seems REALLY useful here. I imagine that its easy for founders to get stars in their eyes about a potential acquisition. Forcing yourself to think rationally about what price you might realistically be offered might help you evaluate wether a meeting would be worth the time or just a distraction you can't afford.
That allowed him to craft the entire experience around what is good for founders which worked out to be great for others (including investors and acquirers).
So much so that this advice he is giving, I am sure many other investors have wanted to give publicly before - but they don't want to piss off people who can provide an exit for their portfolio. The whole fiduciary responsibility thing.
But YC companies are encouraged to think of things quite differently - so much so that even if someone as might as Google (who PG pointed out) thumbed it's nose at YC companies to spite PG....they would be much worse off, because of the quality of companies coming out of YC.
That is the power of seeing "make something people want" to it's natural, logical conclusion.
Being able to say and do what you want, to force behaviour change in an industry to benefit your organization and your goals.
This is also why PG is so well respected by those of us on the outside looking in, is because we see the sheer audacity of him giving blunt advice, about specific tactics that only benefit founders. Even if it may hurt him temporarily.
Thanks again for constantly doing this PG. We appreciate it.