4 ms·
Wow you guys just hit that thing pretty hard - no experience, no tech knowledge, raise cash, throw it at an agency that takes a year and $100K to build the soft
by hoodoof 11y ago
Wow you guys just hit that thing pretty hard - no experience, no tech knowledge, raise cash, throw it at an agency that takes a year and $100K to build the software then grind out your unproven new concepts for six years.
You've got stamina I'll grant that. (or you HAD stamina?)
Not my cup of tea. I prefer my to do my failing writing my own code and these days I try to avoid spending any money so that when I fail I feel less bad about it than I used to when I spent lots of money to get to failure.
- pbreit 11y agoSend post today that read like an Onion article.
- forgottenacc56 11y ago?
- pbreit 11y agoI meant "second post" (besides the "Lists" one). This post seemed to list out every cliched, obviously wrong thing to do.
- x1024 11y agoTo me it sounds more like "We had no skills, no experience and no worthy advice. But we DID have $100K burning a hole in our pockets". Literally "Rule number 1" of being a startup is "Do an MVP and then test if it's worth it to do more". $100K is one hell of an MVP. A fool and his money are soon parted.
- Kequc 11y agoHi, I'm interested in your perspective on this. Could you elaborate as to how much is an acceptable amount to spend on an MVP and testing? $100k certainly sounds high but not altogether unreasonable considering there is a physical product and distribution.
- x1024 11y agoYou are not wrong about the "physical product and distribution" part, but the article says they paid $100K for web development alone.
- yaakovkarda 11y agoDidn't elaborate well — $100K were total expenses by the time of launch, but tech took more than production.
- nostrademons 11y agoIt's usually better to do your own MVP because the product of an MVP (for you, the entrepreneur) is learning, and when you pay someone else to do it, they get the learning.
- geebee 11y agoI don't think of an MVP (minimum viable product) as a prototype, I think of it as the most pared-down application that can still launch. I don't think of this as a shoddy or unreliable app, more a minimalistic one in terms of features, but it does need to work and be stable enough for the initial needs of the business. If you got a good developer at 100k an hour, that leaves you with 1000 hours to create a minimum viable product, or a little over six months. I guess it depends on what you're trying to do, how well you want it to scale initially, and so forth. Kind of curious, this community does tend to lean toward fast startups rather than slow big corps, is six months and 100k considered clearly excessive for an MVP?
- czbond 11y agoI am the same way. I have one failed, one "moderate hit" that as CTO I left, and now I trust no-one but myself to do product need validation. And I've become so skeptical of my results, that I have to hear the message over and over.
- yaakovkarda 11y ago$100k was never a budget estimate. There is a long story under the hood, but (in very short) we had to switch agency but lost a lot of money, than waisted a lot of money again on the indian offshore engineers that made shitty product that we had to remake. So $100k and a year is just an outcome. We had an angel investor who (just as we did) firmly believed in the concept and wanted the project to launch and not to be dropped on the way.