On interpreting feedback from investors:

"Believe the 'No', but don't believe the 'Why'...for the majority of investors, it doesn't benefit them to give the reasons, and they're a little bit afraid that if they give real feedback, the founder's going to think they're an asshole"

In my experience (which is very limited to be honest) I don't think you really need to worry about believing the "No" because VCs don't like to say no. You need to worry about believing the "Yes, but not just yet" because it's not really a yes.

agreed, I never believe a yes until the money is in the bank.

This applies for many other aspects of life too.

I’ve enjoyed the content Michael Seibel has been contributing to YC. He presents things in a very down to earth and simple way. It’s something I’ve missed since the departure of PG.

16:58[0]: "Unfortunately a lot of the large tech companies have extremely smart founders and they basically understand that new people like them are going to be disrupting them and they're proactively working to make sure that they can't be disrupted".

Wow.

[0] https://youtu.be/A35jCapHmug?t=1018

IMO, the optimal self-serving but long-term-benevolent tech pioneer should go the Bill Gates route -- after a significant disruption, invest in moats during a medium length career(20-30 years), and then divest from the industry and pursue philanthropy. Microsoft's moats have been opened up and now allow many other players to disrupt in their former core industries, and Bill doesn't care anymore

Today's tech are the dark ages of tech moats, because it's also the golden age of internet and technology innovation -- but anyone building anything promising gets gobbled up by the same 4-5 FAANG+ giants. I worry that these tech moats will not go away even when their founders transition with billions of dollars in the bank, leaving the next generation of creators to have to expend half their energy filling these moats before they can disrupt anything.

> Microsoft's moats have been opened up and now allow many other players to disrupt in their former core industries

Microsoft seems to be adopting the cloud just fine. They've managed to keep office modern and relevant. Xbox as a platform is still doing well. Windows is still the default OS for desktops; less people are using desktops tho. Microsoft is facing competition sure, and maybe their monopoly on desktops isn't as valuable as it once was. But it seems to me they certainly aren't headed for the mothball fleet anytime soon.

Not really that surprising.

It's why we've had so many acquihires over the years as well as companies like Facebook spending so much to acquire potential competitors like Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus etc.

How much innovative, disruptive tech has never become reality because powerful tech companies acquihires all of their smartest competitors and gives them cushy jobs?

Perhaps the most important factor is that these big FAANG companies have incredible cash flow and warchests which means they can acquire any upcoming contender easily.

It's very hard for any founder to turn that down when multibillion prices are thrown around so often.

Now, tech is a bit like pharma. The big companies work like investment funds and buy any promising upstart to maintain an oligopoly.

Warren Buffet would advise people to invest in moats.

Wow indeed. Nothing new under the sun, but right now the tech sector seem to be particularly vulnerable to the power of the big guys.

Interesting summary about valuation caps for companies coming out of YC: usually $6-12M, but with some hot companies (the top third-ish) getting caps well above that.

Since, as a startup owner, you are basically putting all your eggs in one basket, would it make sense to do a mutual investment with another startup?

Of all the advisors from YC on Youtube, I like Michael Siebel best, I find his advice very actionable and useful right away.

We have the next salesforce, workday and Kabbage combined. We are about to start a revolution. Good talk