[tlb]

Can you zero in on a few specific pieces of YC advice that are most wrong for early-stage companies in Asia? I think it'd be more productive to have a discussion around some specific issues.

YC has much less experience in Asia than the US, and we'd like to learn.

[a3d]

I am myself somewhat formulating a view and I still think many of YC fundamentals still very much apply - so below thoughts may not be well-formed - please read at your own risk.

The backbone of years of manufacturing from shenzhen belt in itself is becoming a moat. For example - I was literally talking to a fast fashion seller with a few shops in seoul yesterday - historically - korea has had edge on design lines to adopt and produce fast fashion from NY/EU creative trends and then manufacture in vietnam/banglafdesh etc - he is just starting to shift some of his buying to China. Their work is now better quality and more so it is cheaper - in vietnam I also saw a fashion retailer going ga ga over quality of men belts he is sourcing from china and now cost is lower - earlier only luxury retailers types had access to such stuff from China - weak IP/copy/ better-trained workforce is making luxury produce more easy to produce may be. Cross border/brand less might be next frontier in ecom here.

The spending and capital power of giants such as Ali/Tencent is becoming a moat. These giants got huge with breaking out market but now they are something like a governopoly working closely with policy makers for china vision.

All of this is affecting SE asia and now even India. In nutshell - below might be different now for starting a company:

1) Being first and just being there might matter more - product-market fit can be weak? because you are dealing with a customer base that is just coming mobile and is much less sophisticated - they will still be ok with your service with some compromise - this is fundamentally against what I have known all my life! - in long term I bet good old best CX matters - but for immature markets not so much right now

2) Being first in small market / being market maker: great if you can do this but this is not needed in Asian context. There is enough size and potential growth coming that just building in the existing big market verticals is ok - you have an opportunity to differentiate by having stronger talent and actually improving existing experience if you can start with a smaller category or segment - ok to go head on with existing players - may be same thing YC says but I word differently

3) Talent is sparse - so you have lots of avg. stuff built and then iterated - this can be your secret advantage even more so here - you can do same thing but bit faster and at better quality

I have think more about this to be more constructive. These are some of my early thoughts and I again - I just hope to share and exchange what I know. I may be wrong and hey that is ok!

[slededit]

YC seems very oriented to Software and other businesses where iteration costs are low. In hardware you have to spend some money to test product market fit. The only way to not lose your shirt is to follow a waterfall approach with more traditional planning. From an external view it seems like the antithesis of the YC approach.

[tlb]

YC started with software companies, but a substantial fraction of current companies are building hardware. See https://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-winter-2018-stats/ and the links to company descriptions.

Waterfall means different things to different people. I think the key to success is getting several iterations in front of the customer, and being able to make major changes based on their feedback. That does usually mean some duplication of effort, but that's better than building something complete that nobody actually wants.

Also, there's a new funding deal for biotech companies that provides more money: https://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-bio/.

[aaavl2821]

I think the issue for biotech isn't just you need more money -- you do to get initial POC (the most analogous concept to product / market fit), but can actually get to exit with less than tech co's nowadays -- but that you have to spend your initial money right. product / feedback cycles are orders of magnitude longer / more expensive, so you need to do more planning to make sure you do the right experiments. this is the hard lesson that the experienced biotech VCs have learned, that generalist VCs have struggled with and why you dont really see many generalist tech VC backed biotech co's succeed (except stemcentryx)

more money without better planning = more money wasted

[whb07]

Yes, but you’re also doing the typical apples to oranges comparison here. Just like the ol’ “China is light years ahead in mobile payments!”. Well sure, because we have a mature credit card system that works well and the Chinese never had a credit card in the first place.

Long story short, because the economies are at different stages, the issues that China has now perhaps the US had 50+ years ago.

You’re not going to sell a product to a 40 year old the same way you do to a 12 year old.