Showing posts with label Paul Graham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Graham. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 26, 2026

26: Paul Graham

How Universities Should Prepare Founders How should universities prepare students to start startups? Y Combinator is in the perfect position to answer this question, because we get them next. We're like grad school. And because YC has had 20 years to refine its model of what a promising founder looks like, you probably won't find a better target. .......... The hard part of startups is product: knowing what to build, and being able to build it. And that kind of knowledge comes from studying computer science or mechanical engineering or molecular biology, not management or finance. ........... So the way to prepare undergraduates to become successful founders is not to give them some new curriculum focused on "entrepreneurship". It's to do what universities already do best — to teach them computer science and mechanical engineering and molecular biology. ............... Indeed, preparing students to start startups is closer to the ideal of liberal education than preparing them for almost any other kind of career. Startups succeed or fail based on how much customers like the product. Customers don't care what the founders studied in college. So founders are free to study whatever they want, as long as they get good at building things. .................. Mark Zuckerberg was good at programming, but he was a psychology major, not a CS major. ........... The best way to describe what would-be founders should study is that they should seek out powerful ideas. ............

Harvard alumni, for example, apply at about twice the rate of Yale and Princeton alumni.

............... Until you've seen some founders in real life, you tend to think that starting startups is something done by other people. Seeing them pops that bubble. In fact seeing founders in real life is doubly inspiring: they seem impressive, but they also seem human. Especially when they talk about the early years, when they were clueless and made lots of mistakes. So strangely enough seeing founders in real life makes being one seem simultaneously both desirable and accessible. It makes students think "I want to be like that, and I could." ............ How inspiring founders are to students is a function roughly of how rich and famous they are divided by how much older they are than the students. So it's not essential to bring famous billionaires to campus. Founders in their mid twenties who are 3 years into a startup with a valuation of a couple hundred million will do as well; they may only be a twentieth as rich and famous, but they're twenty times easier for students to identify with. ........... working on projects together is the best way for cofounders to discover one another. The most successful startups tend to have multiple founders, and the only way to tell for sure if someone will be good to work with is to work with them. Apple and Microsoft were just the last of many projects their founders had worked on together. .......... a startup is a project, so starting one will feel natural to someone who's used to working on projects of their own. It won't seem weird that there's no teacher or boss telling them what to do. They're used to telling themselves. ........... and perhaps most surprisingly, random side projects are where the best startup ideas come from. The best startup ideas tend to seem so implausible at first that anyone consciously looking for startup ideas would reject them. Who'd expect to start a huge company by creating a student directory? .............. young people who are good at building things are technological bellwethers, so any idea that seems interesting to them is disproportionately likely to lead somewhere valuable,

even if they themselves don't realize it yet

. ......... Now it should be clear why the YC partners care a lot about the projects that applicants have worked on and not at all about their GPAs. Projects are the best source of knowledge, the best source of founding teams, and the best source of startup ideas. .............. Microsoft and Meta have something in common that few people realize. They both got started during reading period at Harvard. Reading period is the gap between the end of classes and the beginning of final exams. It's called reading period because students are supposed to spend it preparing for exams. But reading period also turns out to have the unique combination of qualities that make it perfect for starting new projects: the students are all on campus, and they don't have anything due the next day. That latter constraint, especially, is a huge drag on the most ambitious students. Merely eliminating it for a few weeks resulted in two trillion dollar companies. Imagine what the US GDP would be if reading period at Harvard were twice as long. .................. Universities will tend to resist the idea of keeping students less busy with coursework. Partly because administrators feel that if they want to achieve something, they have to do it by taking active measures.

Achieving something merely by leaving students alone is alien to their nature.

.................. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg both got in trouble with the Harvard administration over projects they worked on as undergrads. Bill broke university rules by bringing Paul Allen, who wasn't a student, into the computer lab with him to work on Altair Basic. Zuck got in such trouble over Facemash that he was put on disciplinary probation. And their cases are probably more the rule than the exception. Universities have lots of rules, and novel projects are often untidy things. .................

Right now there are students flying drones out of line of sight. Turn a blind eye to it.

.................... One thing universities can't do is actually teach students how to start startups. Starting a startup is one of those things, like chemistry or painting, that you have to learn by doing. Which means a properly run class on how to start a startup would have to be a lab class: the students would actually have to start startups. And I know exactly what a class of this type should look like, because YC is it. But YC is very different in structure from a university, and if you tried to cram it into an undergrad degree program, it would become a joke. ...................... Are they supposed to run startups, which notoriously take every moment of your time when done properly, while simultaneously taking three or four other classes? And what if, despite these handicaps, some of the startups actually take off? Are the students just supposed to abandon them? Because it's either that or drop out. ................. Fundraising is merely a necessary evil. The people you need to impress are users, not investors, and the way you impress them is with prototypes, not words. ...............

The core of starting a startup is not creating a story that appeals to investors, but creating a product that appeals to users.

................... Probably one of the reasons universities are tempted to organize bogus things like business plan competitions is that if they actually took the optimal measures to prepare students to start startups, it would look too quiet. Imagine if a university were doing everything right. Students would be getting a deep knowledge of how to build things in classes they were taking out of genuine interest, and working eagerly with their friends on side projects that had nothing to do with school. The students would graduate with exactly what predicts success in founders: the ability to build things and a habit of doing it. Plus a significant number of those side projects would be incipient startups. And yet it would look to parents and prospective students as if the university wasn't doing anything. Where are the classes on "entrepreneurship"? Where is the Innovation Center? ................. And indeed this is another great thing about the optimal plan for preparing startup founders: it costs nothing extra. You don't have to hire any deans of entrepreneurship or build any new buildings. In fact if you do, those things will tend to drag you down; there's no need for them, so if they have any effect at all it will tend to be for the worse. If you have spare money, give it to the people teaching computer science or mechanical engineering or molecular biology. .............. Should students still study computer science if AIs will write most code? Definitely. CS is an interesting subject in its own right and also a great way to understand problem solving in general. And even if you have AIs writing all your code for you, you're still in the position of an engineering manager, and good engineering managers should be able to do the work of those working for them. .................

"Entrepreneurship" simply means starting one's own business, and startups are a microscopically small subset of that world in which the rules are completely different.

................... Presumably one reason these competitions lean toward impressing investors rather than users is that it's the only way to have a single set of judges. Investors can be treated as interchangeable, whereas the users of each product might be different. But if it's impractical to measure the right thing, that doesn't mean the solution is to measure the wrong one. ..........

Business schools were not designed to train founders. They were designed to train the managerial class of the large industrial companies that arose in the early 20th century; they're the West Points of industrial capitalism.

That's why their official name is usually the School of Management. But while the skills they teach might be useful in running companies beyond a certain size, they're not the critical ingredient in founding them. And the skills that are are already taught by other departments. So to the extent business schools affect their parent university's strategy for preparing founders, it can only be by adding error.

at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, June 18, 2026

The Necklace AI: OpenAI and Jony Ive's Vision for Ambient, Screenless Computing




The Necklace AI: OpenAI and Jony Ive's Vision for Ambient, Screenless Computing
In a recent X thread responding to Paul Graham's observation that the next computing form factor remains unknown but will eventually feel obvious, I describe a compelling futuristic device. I envision something that "hangs like a necklace and you talk to that is invisible to others, unless you want otherwise. And it speaks to your machines that do all your work." I link this concept to OpenAI, suggesting the company—under Sam Altman—is pursuing it, especially after poaching legendary designer Jony Ive.
This isn't pure speculation. OpenAI has been actively developing AI hardware in partnership with Jony Ive (often stylized as Johnny Ive), the former Apple design chief behind the iPhone, iMac, and many iconic products. The project, which began with Ive's startup io (later merged into OpenAI), aims to create a new generation of "peaceful," context-aware devices for the AI era—potentially transforming how humans interact with intelligent systems. Key Details on the Device Concept
  • Form Factor: Multiple reports and rumors describe a small, pocket-sized or wearable pendant/necklace-style device. It is designed to hang around the neck or clip on, making it unobtrusive and always accessible. It emphasizes ambient, "disappearing" computing—something you wear and forget about, rather than a device that demands attention like a smartphone.
  • Screenless Design: A core feature is the absence of a traditional screen. Interaction relies on voice, multimodality (speech, audio feedback, possibly contextual awareness via sensors or cameras in related prototypes), and seamless integration. This moves away from "talking with our thumbs" toward natural conversation. OpenAI executives have emphasized it should feel natural and human.
  • Core Functionality:
    • Always-on personal AI companion or "co-pilot."
    • Handles reading, writing, managing tasks, and interfacing with other devices/machines (e.g., your laptop or smart home).
    • Contextually aware of surroundings, conversations, and user needs.
    • Agentic capabilities: Performs work autonomously while the user engages in higher-level activities (as I note, "Agentic AI does all your reading... What do you do? You go read books").
    • Multimodal and real-time: Supports voice interaction without constant manual input.
  • Design Philosophy: Jony Ive and Sam Altman have described the device(s) as "lovable," joyful, "peaceful," and an "active participant" that's not annoying. The goal is to elevate humanity and create products that inspire rather than distract. Ive's involvement brings Apple's signature elegance and human-centered design to AI hardware. Altman has called prototypes "the coolest piece of technology that the world will have ever seen."
  • Ecosystem Role: It acts as a bridge to other computing devices. In my vision, it communicates with "your machines that do all your work," such as next-generation AI-powered laptops. It could become a "third core device" alongside a MacBook Pro and iPhone.
Development Background and TimelineOpenAI acquired Ive's io Products (or io) in a major ~$6.5 billion all-stock deal in 2025. Ive and his LoveFrom team took on deep design and creative roles across OpenAI. Prototypes exist, and executives (including CFO Sarah Friar) have tested early versions, describing the experience as seamless and transformative.
Initial targets pointed to a 2026 reveal/launch, but court filings and reports indicate delays, with shipping not expected before February 2027 (partly due to naming/trademark issues with the "io" brand). OpenAI is working on a "family of products," with the first potentially being a smart speaker with camera or the wearable pendant.
This project sits amid broader AI hardware efforts. Competitors like Meta are exploring similar wearable pendants (e.g., building on acquisitions like Limitless for always-on recording/transcription), while earlier attempts (Humane AI Pin, Rabbit R1) faced challenges with form factor, overheating, and usability—lessons OpenAI appears to be heeding. Why It MattersMy thread captures the excitement: In an agentic AI future, the human role shifts toward creativity and reflection, while devices handle the mundane. A necklace-like AI companion could make computing truly ambient—always present but invisible until needed—ushering in the post-smartphone era.
As Graham noted, the next form factor will seem obvious in retrospect. If OpenAI and Ive succeed, a simple, elegant wearable pendant you talk to might one day feel as natural as pocketing a smartphone does today. Details remain under wraps, but the vision points to a more human, voice-first, AI-integrated way of living and working. Expect more concrete prototypes and announcements as development progresses into 2027.





Jony Ive's Design Philosophy: Simplicity, Care, and Tools for Humanity
Sir Jonathan "Jony" Ive is the legendary British designer behind many of Apple's most iconic products, including the iMac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad. After nearly three decades at Apple (leaving in 2019), he founded LoveFrom and later collaborated deeply with OpenAI on AI-era hardware. His approach has profoundly shaped modern consumer technology and industrial design.
Ive's philosophy draws heavily from two key influences: the Bauhaus tradition ("form follows function," "less is more") and, especially, Dieter Rams' 10 Principles of Good Design. Rams, Braun's longtime chief designer, emphasized that good design is innovative, useful, aesthetic, understandable, unobtrusive, honest, long-lasting, thorough, environmentally friendly, and as little design as possible. Ive contributed an essay to Rams' monograph As Little Design as Possible and has described Rams' work as articulating "the way it should be" for the profession. Core Tenets of Ive's Philosophy1. Simplicity as Clarity and Purpose (Not Minimalism for Its Own Sake)
Ive repeatedly stresses that true simplicity goes far beyond removing clutter. It is about deeply understanding and describing the purpose of an object so clearly that the design feels inevitable.
“Simplicity is not the absence of clutter, that’s a consequence of simplicity. Simplicity is somehow essentially describing the purpose and place of an object and product.”

He aims for designs where the technology "disappears" — users stop thinking about how it works and focus on what they can do. When complexity is mastered, the product feels "magical."
2. Obsessive Attention to Detail and Care
Ive believes products communicate values. Care — even for unseen parts (like the inside of a case or manufacturing precision) — shows respect for the user. He contrasts this with the "carelessness" common in much of the manufactured environment.
“What we make stands testament to who we are... People can sense care.”

This extends to materials, manufacturing processes (treated as a design material itself), and every radius or surface. Ease of use comes from obsessing over overlooked details.
3. Genuinely Better, Not Just Different or New
Innovation is hard because it requires rejecting easy novelty in favor of thorough improvement. Ive notes that "different and new is relatively easy. Doing something that’s genuinely better is very hard." This involves extensive prototyping, failure, and iteration — often rejecting many ideas for every one that succeeds. Products should feel "inevitable," as if no rational alternative exists.
4. Human-Centered Tools in Service of Humanity
Design is an applied art focused on creating useful tools, not self-expression. Ive sees his work as serving people and elevating experiences, often in collaboration with visionary leaders (like Steve Jobs at Apple or Sam Altman at OpenAI).
He emphasizes optimism about the future, recognizability, and making products that are intuitive, joyful, and "peaceful." In recent AI work, this includes addressing technology's disruptive effects and aiming for designs where "humanity deserves better."
5. Thoroughness, Longevity, and Integrity
Good design is honest (no superficial styling that dates quickly), long-lasting, and thorough down to manufacturing and sustainability. Ive avoids "design statements" that draw attention to the designer rather than the user's experience. Philosophy in Practice and EvolutionAt Apple, this manifested in translucent colors (original iMac), seamless integration of hardware and software, multi-touch interfaces, and products that felt premium yet approachable. White elements (like iPod earbuds) became cultural markers while staying "recessive" to form.
Post-Apple, through LoveFrom and OpenAI/io, Ive applies the same rigor to new challenges: AI hardware that is less socially disruptive than smartphones, ambient computing, and collaborations (e.g., Ferrari's first electric car). He stresses collaboration across disciplines, as modern products involve complex interfaces between physical objects and "soft" (software/AI) experiences.
Ive has described design as revealing character: "The majority of our manufactured environment is characterized by carelessness... we have genuinely tried to make products that don’t stand testament to those values." Lasting ImpactJony Ive's philosophy is ethical as much as aesthetic — precision as respect, simplicity as empathy, and design as a moral act of caring for users and resources. It prioritizes harmony across form, function, manufacturing, and human experience. In an era of rapid technological change, his consistent focus on care, intuition, and genuine improvement offers a timeless framework for creating objects that feel not just useful, but right.
As Ive himself might say, the goal is products so resolved that they simply feel obvious — the only way they could have been.



Jony Ive’s Exit from Apple and His Path to OpenAI: From Design Icon to AI Hardware Visionary
Sir Jonathan “Jony” Ive, the British designer who helped resurrect Apple and shape the modern technology landscape through products like the iMac, iPod, iPhone, and Apple Watch, left the company in 2019 after nearly 27 years. His departure marked the end of an era closely tied to Steve Jobs’ vision. Several years later, Ive emerged as a central figure in OpenAI’s ambitious push into consumer hardware. The Gradual Drift and Departure from AppleIve joined Apple in 1992. His partnership with Steve Jobs, who returned in 1997, produced some of the company’s most transformative designs. After Jobs’ death in 2011, Ive continued as a key leader, becoming Chief Design Officer in 2015. However, his role and engagement at Apple evolved under CEO Tim Cook.
Reports indicate Ive’s departure was not abrupt but the culmination of growing frustration and cultural shifts. Under Cook, Apple became more operationally focused, with emphasis on efficiency, services, and financial performance — a move away from the intensely design-centric culture of the Jobs era. Ive reportedly felt increasingly disconnected as the company grew more bureaucratic and “utilitarian.”
He spent less time in the office, often working from his San Francisco home or focusing on major projects like Apple Park (the company’s spaceship-like headquarters). Design team members sometimes had to travel to present work to him. There were also signs of burnout after decades of intense pressure.
On June 27, 2019, Apple announced that Ive would depart as an employee later that year to found an independent design company, with Apple as its primary client. Ive described it as a “natural and gentle time” for the change. Tim Cook praised his contributions, noting that “his role in Apple’s revival cannot be overstated.”
In 2019, Ive co-founded LoveFrom, a creative collective with designer Marc Newson. It operated as a low-profile studio focused on selective, high-impact projects. Ive maintained a consulting relationship with Apple until it ended in July 2022. Founding LoveFrom and the Road to OpenAIPost-Apple, Ive pursued personal and collaborative projects through LoveFrom, working with clients like Ferrari and Airbnb while keeping a relatively low public profile. His interest in emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, led to new opportunities.
Ive’s collaboration with OpenAI began quietly around 2023. He reached out to CEO Sam Altman as he explored ideas for AI-enabled products. Their shared values — optimism about technology’s potential, a focus on human-centered design, and a desire to create meaningful tools — quickly deepened the partnership.
In 2024, Ive co-founded io Products, Inc. (often stylized as io) with former Apple colleagues, including Evans Hankey and Tang Tan. The startup aimed to develop AI hardware that felt less socially disruptive than smartphones — ambient, intuitive devices suited to the age of advanced AI. OpenAI invested in io, acquiring a stake and eventually pursuing full ownership. The $6.5 Billion Merger with OpenAIOn May 21, 2025, OpenAI announced the acquisition of io in an all-stock deal valued at approximately $6.5 billion — OpenAI’s largest acquisition to date. The io team merged into OpenAI, while Ive and LoveFrom took on deep design and creative responsibilities across the company.
In a joint letter and video, Altman and Ive expressed excitement about building a “new family of products” for the AI era. These would empower creativity and interaction with AI in more natural ways, potentially including screenless or wearable companions. Ive described the opportunity as inspiring, aligning with his long-held philosophy of creating tools that serve humanity.
The move represented a full-circle moment of sorts: just as Ive partnered with Jobs to redefine personal computing, he now collaborates with Altman to shape AI hardware. Prototypes and concepts have been in development, with initial devices eyed for 2026 or later, though timelines have faced some adjustments. A New ChapterJony Ive’s exit from Apple reflected the challenges of sustaining creative intensity in a maturing corporation. Rather than a bitter break, it opened space for independence and fresh collaborations. His union with OpenAI combines unparalleled design expertise with cutting-edge AI, positioning him once again at the forefront of technological evolution.
As Ive and Altman pursue devices that aim to feel magical and human, the partnership underscores a belief that great design remains essential — even, or especially, in the age of artificial intelligence.



at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)