I posted this over there, but it relates to HN as well:<p>---
These are good thoughts, and of course, it seems clear the devil is in the details when it comes to defining 'success.' : ).<p>With the exception of YC, which as you say, has markedly changed the startup landscape without mind-numbing returns (so far), many of the concerns you mention are financial, or sort of finance-expectations outcome oriented.<p>There's a whole other category of outcomes that businesses traditionally provide: employment, social, civic and cultural improvement. While it's nice to get rich, and nice to have a successful exit, and even nicer to do it in such a way that other investors wish you would do it for them, almost everything you mention above is focused on the outcomes for a really small number of people: founders + investors.<p>This strikes me as venture capitalist thinking, and makes me think you've spent a lot of time with VCs, and not as much time with people trying to say, invent new water filtration technology, or build out a wind farm with a 50 year ROI, or maybe just make it as farmers in the developing world, .<p>There can be an element of small-minded profit focus in the VC world, a focus which can choose to ignore the 'but so what?' question -- 'So what if we got our clients 35%, ourselves 2/20, and the entrepreneurs 5x their salary potential for the period?' The billionaires I've met rarely seem to think about money as a measure of success; they are typically extremely engaged with the question of how to put that money to actual and good use, applying the principals they've learned along the way -- not wasting it either in a social sense, or a financial sense. They are typically extremely people focused, whether they live simply or extravagantly.<p>So, to me, there's a possibility of a sort of higher calling in business and entrepreneurship; moving past the 'make money for our close-knit stakeholders' idea to making a change in the world, in the lives of employees, actually moving job creation numbers, and so on. In a way, whatever floats your boat.<p>I believe that if, as an entrepreneur, you optimize only for financial success -- e.g. first your own exit value, then investors, you run the risk of hitting that 'so what' question hard -- perhaps when you've gotten rich, perhaps when you failed miserably.<p>On these terms I would call YC an unqualified success -- PG didn't need the money; he needed to do something useful with the money. He and his team have done that, and helped re-spin tech entrepreneurialism in America. I think that's awesome. But, I think it would be great if the work that's been done on showing young 20-somethings how to launch could be extended on pitching them on 'why' with a long-term view. Most mid-life entrepreneurs spend a lot of time thinking about the why, even while they continue to enhance their skills and ability to deliver good financial results.