Comment by jsheard
1 year ago
> PearAI evidently forked an OSS code editor, then later got funding from Y Combinator for it.
More specifically PearAI forked the OSS code editor Continue, which was itself funded by YC, and got YC funding for it. Also the editor they forked is itself a fork of VS Code, but is not to be confused with Void Editor, which is a third YC funded VS Code fork with AI features. It's YC funded VS Code forks with AI all the way down.
So fork of the fork got funded. Interesting. Now I believe it is true that "you don't have to have even a product"
This is crazy. And then I hear about solid products/companies that don’t get any/very little funding at all because it has no “AI” and it baffles the mind.
Funders are betting on founders. They see somebody willing to take shortcuts and ride hype trains, turn good faith projects and pass them off as their own innovation, and the see the kind of sociopathic organization that has the potential to "become the next Uber."
They aren't funding the viability of the product, they are funding for a take of future earnings of the morally bankrupt or the righteous will of the hopelessly naive. In either case, it's all about how effectively they can affix a leash.
Rent-seeking over value-creation.
1 reply →
This sounds like the preamble to a Michael Lewis story to the next tech bubble.
> OSS code editor Continue
Are you talking about continue.dev?
That's not an editor itself, nor is if a fork of VS Code; it's an extension for VS Code (and JetBrains).
My mistake, I haven't used Continue and was led to believe they have their own VS Code distro. PearAI forked VS Code and forked Continues VS Code extension and smushed them together then. They also just wired Continues code up to Claude/GPT4 so the models aren't novel either.
Maybe you're thinking of Cursor, which did fork VSCode.
1 reply →
This is an interesting business model. Continue building on top of YC-funded forks, and you basically end up with a product that was funded by billions, but your own contribution to it was minimal.
I wonder if it's possible to get funding for a fork of an already funded fork that you launched recently.
Might even be an easy money glitch: every couple of years or so you fork your YC funded code editor, get YC funding for the new fork, and cruise on that money for a while.
(all of the above is said tongue in cheek)
> ...an interesting business model. Continue building on top of YC-funded forks, and you basically end up with a product that was funded by billions, but your own contribution to it was minimal
Don't give blockchain bros any ideas...
Forkchain? Proof of Fork? Hmmm… there’s something there
Well said! That last sentence was very elegant.
Don't see a problem with YC "dutching" and spreading their bets across multiple forks/teams.
I just forked the vs code repo and didn't screw up statements on a license for a business model. I'm clearly the superior hedge and I'll be waiting for my check.
"Fork you"
4 replies →
you're obviously joking, but it'd be interesting if you actually tried :)
people seem so caught up in founders' particular ideas at the pre-seed stage and forget that YC is investing in people - specifically: people who try. you can jokingly quip that you'd be better at forking vs code, but at the end of the day they're doing it - not "waiting for their check" - and you're making fun of them on the internet ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
3 replies →
It does dispel the myth that YC is simply investing in founders. They are really investing in the ideas that the partners like and then finding teams who are capable of delivering on it.
Which is of course fine but you see Dalton's Request for Startups and I've not seen only a tiny handful in the last two batches.
Due to YC's large batch sizes and the consolidation of industries such as AI, increasing numbers of YC startups are now directly competing with each other.
When 98% of your "product" is a thin wrapper around chatGPT, you will of course end up competing against every other product that is a thin wrapper around chatGPT.
5 replies →
VCs will frequently invest in competing startups to hedge their bets.
Seems like YC should pair more of these smaller companies together, I honestly don’t know if that would help or not. Most YC funded projects aren’t really profitable to begin with.
It’s like somewhere in between getting grant funding for a university project and real corporate work.
I mean, this was precisely PG's genius - taking the right set of unwashed nerds, pairing them up appropriately and then mentoring the end result. That model gave birth to Reddit and Auctomatic.
I don't get it either - why spend $2m on 4 YC companies under different group partners, creating a hunger games of sorts, instead of convincing all of them to combine their talent for $500k. Sure, egos will be bruised and they might fight over who's boss, but the chances of the final product succeeding would be much higher.
Not enough people give credit to PG or PT for their genius in disrupting markets and making the world overall a happier, better place.
Tell us of the time you hacked a real-life (non-computer) system
To that I say “fork yeah”, the old GitHub slogan. I haven’t seen Continue complaining about it. It’s far less toxic than Sentry or Hashicorp which are on the other side of the issue. Pear could have been a bit less blatant I guess, but I think it’s fine that they took advantage of the license.
Edit: I just realized the old t-shirt slogan of GitHub was “Fork you.” Even better.
Is Sentry based on FOSS?
It was open source for about 10 years. They built themselves a name by being open source. Then they went and changed their license to a non-OSI-approved license. https://blog.sentry.io/relicensing-sentry/ Not everyone went along with it, but a lot did.