3 ms·

I feel this is extremely relevant to startups. Most startups have no "end"- at least Duke Nukem had a goal ("release"). With startups, they really just go on

I feel this is extremely relevant to startups. Most startups have no "end"- at least Duke Nukem had a goal ("release"). With startups, they really just go on forever. No startup will ever be finished, and it is far too easy to just keep toiling away with no real goal. If startups had a set end date where the developers moved on, I would argue that we'd have more useful projects coming out of the Bay Area.

dkarl 17y ago
"The way a program looks in the end is not important because there is rarely an end, and if there is one it isn't planned." -- Richard Gabriel Developers should think and work with this quote in mind, but management (whether it's company management or a person's internal monitor) has to steer them to specific milestones and release points. A release schedule with feature goals imposes a peristaltic rhythm on development, which prevents developers from getting stuck on one aspect of development or straining for a too-distant goal.
swombat 17y ago
That's easily countered by launching as early as possible.
- gkoberger 17y ago
  Sure, you can launch. But then what? You still have nothing but time. You can set milestones, and releases. However, since there will never be a "shipped" or "finished" product, many startups end up having no direction. After all, they have forever to get it right.
  - Retric 17y ago
    IMO, software has cycles. Early systems have lot's of known issues that can be quickly fixed. Then mid cycle have little or nothing minor wrong and so you tackle one or more major issues. Then your back to having lot's of little bugs to fix. Microsoft has discovered you can sell both parts of the cycle both new features aka Vista and then bug fixes Windows 7. But, when people talk about the minimum valuable product what they really mean is the smallest cycle where you get something people will pay for at the end. The secret is to setup your cycles so you make enough money to keep going and or know when to let a product keep without investing in the next cycle. EX: Windows ME. Or Coke with sugar, new Coke with corn syrup, Classic Coca-Cola with corn syrup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola
  - rjurney 17y ago
    Customer Development solves this problem. You have to leave the building and identify real needs among real customers, a real market niche, and to validate your product hypothesis. Then you're not aimless anymore, you're trying to solve a real problem for real people that you've personally met outside the building. http://steveblank.com/category/customer-development/ http://steveblank.com/category/customer-development/ I've never personally met any startup founders that weren't acutely aware of their limited runway. Generally they are haunted by it day and night. People do get aimless - because they don't test their idea in the real market. In a vacuum, its easy to get lost.
  - paraschopra 17y ago
    So do you argue that startups should have goals such as we will have X number of paying users by Y else we'll fold up?
abossy 17y ago
Startups eventually run out of money. It sounds like the Duke Nukem Forever team basically had the same problem; it's just that their money lasted 12 years.

dkarl 17y ago

"The way a program looks in the end is not important because there is rarely an end, and if there is one it isn't planned." -- Richard Gabriel Developers should think and work with this quote in mind, but management (whether it's company management or a person's internal monitor) has to steer them to specific milestones and release points. A release schedule with feature goals imposes a peristaltic rhythm on development, which prevents developers from getting stuck on one aspect of development or straining for a too-distant goal.

swombat 17y ago

That's easily countered by launching as early as possible.

gkoberger 17y ago
Sure, you can launch. But then what? You still have nothing but time. You can set milestones, and releases. However, since there will never be a "shipped" or "finished" product, many startups end up having no direction. After all, they have forever to get it right.
- Retric 17y ago
  IMO, software has cycles. Early systems have lot's of known issues that can be quickly fixed. Then mid cycle have little or nothing minor wrong and so you tackle one or more major issues. Then your back to having lot's of little bugs to fix. Microsoft has discovered you can sell both parts of the cycle both new features aka Vista and then bug fixes Windows 7. But, when people talk about the minimum valuable product what they really mean is the smallest cycle where you get something people will pay for at the end. The secret is to setup your cycles so you make enough money to keep going and or know when to let a product keep without investing in the next cycle. EX: Windows ME. Or Coke with sugar, new Coke with corn syrup, Classic Coca-Cola with corn syrup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola
- rjurney 17y ago
  Customer Development solves this problem. You have to leave the building and identify real needs among real customers, a real market niche, and to validate your product hypothesis. Then you're not aimless anymore, you're trying to solve a real problem for real people that you've personally met outside the building. http://steveblank.com/category/customer-development/ http://steveblank.com/category/customer-development/ I've never personally met any startup founders that weren't acutely aware of their limited runway. Generally they are haunted by it day and night. People do get aimless - because they don't test their idea in the real market. In a vacuum, its easy to get lost.
- paraschopra 17y ago
  So do you argue that startups should have goals such as we will have X number of paying users by Y else we'll fold up?

abossy 17y ago

Startups eventually run out of money. It sounds like the Duke Nukem Forever team basically had the same problem; it's just that their money lasted 12 years.