Comment by dang
1 day ago
Isn't that how every major tech wave works? "Thing, but for $X" is what everyone was doing when $X was personal computing, the web, mobile.
1 day ago
Isn't that how every major tech wave works? "Thing, but for $X" is what everyone was doing when $X was personal computing, the web, mobile.
Sure, but how many of those were YC-worthy?
Exactly, and the formula in the past was less "[hot new tech] for [some industry]" back in the day, and more "[problem solved] for [target audience]". Maybe it is just the wording that I object to, and not the substance of the startup's solution to the problem?
I guess I don't care about today's "AI agent for the agricultural industry" as much as I cared about yesterday's "Tool to help farmers plan crop rotation".
"$Foo for $Bar" has always been a common formula for startups that are just getting going, including in YC. I think you guys are rewriting the past a bit here.
I have to defer, you're a lot closer to these things than I am, but I remember since the 90's the "this-for-that" analogies were around and became hot at some point, so that you were even encouraged by some to put it into that form for a while.
Where I see a difference is that it used to be about creating unique combinations and now it's more about deployment. "What about the known tool for this market?" It's banal. I can honestly say, it's not that I don't remember -- I do -- it's that I'm waiting and hoping to get excited about a startup again.
1 reply →
Correct $Foo for $Bar was common back then but I made the subtle distinction between "TikTok for Math Tutors" ([solution] for [audience served]) where naming a startup in a different vertical is a shortcut for the solution, and what we see now which is "AI agents for Banking" ([technology] for [industry]) where naming the technology doesn't make it clear what the problem or solution is, and the industry doesn't necessarily say who has the problem or needs the solution.
[flagged]