5 ms·
To 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
by x1024 11y ago
To 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?