[bstrong]

Wow, that was harsh. If startups were assigned to the Deadpool based solely on whether their 1.0 products were ready to immediately disrupt billion dollar industries, there wouldn't be _any_ successful startups out there.

Personally, when I see a team of people who are passionate about what they are doing create something new and interesting, I like to cheer them on.

I think the technology is interesting and cool. Even if it isn't marketable in current form (what 1.0 product is), I wish them the best in iterating on it until it is.

[anigbrowl]

It's realistic. Nothing at all against Jukedeck, nice work and so on, but these automatic composition tools are also available to any other musicians out there, and (as you may have noticed) there's an oversupply of musicians who are demonstrably more passionate than any startup entrepreneur because most of them are willing to keep plugging away at their musical endeavor for its own sake rather than because they have any hope of becoming rich or even making an adequate living. Jukedeck is doomed for the same reason that a startup offering robotic table waiters to restaurants is doomed; there's an oversupply of humans willing to do a much better job for relatively little money.

[rockarage]

What's harsh is burning through 3 million dollars while you're trying to figure out what's wrong. If my statments leads to a major change that saves the company that is a good thing.

[strayptr]

3 million dollars is nothing. It took a million dollars to make a single very low-quality video game, circa 2008. Salaries are expensive.

The investment model is set up to let founders "burn through" money while they explore new approaches to old industries. The investors don't really care that the money is lost. To be an investor, you have to assume 9 out of 10 of your investments will be write-offs.

So if you're not defending the investors' money, and if the founders are happy doing this, then why are you intentionally being harsh? Let them do their thing. Yeah they might fail, but so what? It's the only path to success.

It's not really productive to try to save people or companies via internet comments. You're more likely to demoralize them than to change their minds. Unfortunately, demoralization is often someone's hidden motive.

[rockarage]

I have actually helped a company where our initial interaction was via an internet comment, so don't make assumptions. Stating market reality is not being harsh, there is an abundant supply of royalty free music available at a very low cost or for free. If you're demoralized because someone states the facts of a competitive market than that is very unfortunate and you're not really fit to be an entrepreneur in a highly competitive market. From experience, working on a product that is failing is very demoralizing. I actually will like to see them do something novel and great with their technology.

Moreover there is great ideas* in this thread that can actually help the company.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10707389

[nitrogen]

I actually will like to see them do something novel and great with their technology.

As a developer, occasional FPS gamer, and musician, I'd like to see them tackle adaptive generative music that is actually convincing. I want music that takes cues from the gaming environment without obvious loop splicing points and without feeling mechanical.

[humanfromearth]

Yes, that was I was expecting.

1. I upload a video 2. Jukedeck finds me the perfect audio for it.

[beyti]

I think you're missing the whole point for "ShowHN", which IMHO is really valueable,worthy comments/opinions you should take into consideration.

[strayptr]

Actually not. Here are the rules for Show HN:

Be respectful. Anyone sharing work is making a contribution, however modest.

Ask questions out of curiosity. Don't cross-examine.

Instead of "you're doing it wrong", suggest alternatives. When someone is learning, help them learn more.

When something isn't good, you needn't pretend that it is. But don't be gratuitously negative.

Calling someone's startup "headed for the deadpool" is the definition of gratuitously negative.

[eru]

It's still all in good faith and in a civil tone.

[dvirsky]

While it's not easy to hear, I got one such advice once on a company I started, and in true entrepreneurial spirit ignored it and kept iterating away. It was 100% spot on.

I wish people were more frank about what they think of start-ups, and I wish there was an acceptable way of doing that without insulting people.

[antirez]

In Italy for example is the exact contrary of the silicon valley mindset where everybody will say "cool!". You will likely get criticisms like "it's nice but will hardly work" and so forth. This has the effect of discouraging people a lot. However as you said, the reverse is also dangerous. There must be a middle ground where it's possible to get balanced criticisms that make founders aware of the risks of a given business.

[dvirsky]

Not only balanced, but constructive and well thought. Saying "this sucks" or "I can't believe anyone invested in this" is useless. The above criticism, while not very constructive, is still grounded in facts (that I can't judge since I don't know the field enough) and goes beyond "this won't work"

[antirez]

Yep exactly, a good mix is "cool but make sure you think also at <constructive critics about what could be dangerous>".

[blazespin]

That wasn't harsh, that was just pure, unadulterated envy :)

[mejari]

Envy of what, exactly?