4 ms·
I'm curious about the shuttering timelines that failed startups use. Three weeks is awfully fast to go from operational to shutdown for a service that customers
by nathancahill 11y ago
I'm curious about the shuttering timelines that failed startups use. Three weeks is awfully fast to go from operational to shutdown for a service that customers rely on. I see two options, either could be reasons that a startup would fail:
1. Customers don't rely on the service.
2. There are no customers.
Otherwise, why not leave the servers on for another month?
EDIT: 3. The service isn't automated enough to be run without human intervention, even for a month. Which would also likely create failure when it scales.
- chrissnell 11y agoIf your priority is returning the remaining investors' money to the investors, why would you keep the lights on?
- nathancahill 11y agoI'm wondering specifically about keeping the servers on. Server costs are much less than the cost of "keeping the lights on".
- javajosh 11y agoIt depends on the product. CI is very compute intensive (and may be bandwidth intensive, depending on setup).
- grrowl 11y agoI agree, even shutting down compute/cost-intensive features (i.e. the actual functionality) and leaving the login screen open might prevent a few people from losing work. Then again, if the code is mirrored on github/bitbucket/whatever, then the risk of data loss is minimal and the product is actually all functionality.
- cognivore 11y agoI keep hearing "fail fast" as part of the start-up rah-rah. They just took it to heart.